Re: BTMaxItemSize seems to be subtly incorrect

From: Peter Geoghegan <pg(at)bowt(dot)ie>
To: Thomas Munro <thomas(dot)munro(at)gmail(dot)com>
Cc: Robert Haas <robertmhaas(at)gmail(dot)com>, "pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org" <pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org>
Subject: Re: BTMaxItemSize seems to be subtly incorrect
Date: 2022-08-05 05:40:44
Message-ID: CAH2-WznqLyWFK+Jkmsc+rTqPuzQCC_bw-6uxjjjNedr0R+Hg2A@mail.gmail.com
Views: Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email
Thread:
Lists: pgsql-hackers

On Thu, Aug 4, 2022 at 10:25 PM Thomas Munro <thomas(dot)munro(at)gmail(dot)com> wrote:
> FYI florican and lapwing showed:
>
> 2022-08-05 01:04:29.903 EDT [34485:5] FATAL: deduplication failed to
> add heap tid to pending posting list
> 2022-08-05 01:04:29.903 EDT [34485:6] CONTEXT: WAL redo at 0/49708D8
> for Btree/DEDUP: nintervals 4; blkref #0: rel 1663/16384/2674, blk 1

This very likely has something to do with the way nbtdedup.c uses
BTMaxItemSize(), which apparently won't work on these 32-bit systems
now.

I'll fix this tomorrow morning.

--
Peter Geoghegan

In response to

Responses

Browse pgsql-hackers by date

  From Date Subject
Next Message Peter Smith 2022-08-05 06:03:29 Re: Support logical replication of DDLs
Previous Message Thomas Munro 2022-08-05 05:25:08 Re: BTMaxItemSize seems to be subtly incorrect