| From: | Fujii Masao <masao(dot)fujii(at)gmail(dot)com> |
|---|---|
| To: | surya poondla <suryapoondla4(at)gmail(dot)com> |
| Cc: | Rahul <rahul(at)rhyadav(dot)dev>, Pgsql Hackers <pgsql-hackers(at)lists(dot)postgresql(dot)org>, Thomas Munro <thomas(dot)munro(at)gmail(dot)com>, Ju Grigorev <ju(dot)grigorev(at)ftdata(dot)ru> |
| Subject: | Re: Wrong LSN in WAL decoding error messages |
| Date: | 2026-10-30 14:59:43 |
| Message-ID: | CAHGQGwHMpEVHPkm5heObEZaaG8=M9kOLc37-zUrteaptgi7MMg@mail.gmail.com |
| Views: | Whole Thread | Raw Message | Download mbox | Resend email |
| Thread: | |
| Lists: | pgsql-hackers |
On Tue, Oct 13, 2026 at 3:07 AM surya poondla <suryapoondla4(at)gmail(dot)com> wrote:
> The patch looks ready for a Committer.
DecodeXLogRecord() changes in 0001 patch look good to me.
But, do we really need a new test for such a small fix? Generating and
locating a record, handling boundaries, modifying WAL, recomputing the CRC,
and copying the segment seem like a lot of complexity and maintenance
overhead just to verify the reported LSN, I'm afraid.
If we really want this, seems it's better to consider it separately as a test
for malformed WAL detection, including the LSN check. I'm just not sure
this additional infrastructure is worth the effort, though..
Regards,
--
Fujii Masao
| From | Date | Subject | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Next Message | Tom Lane | 2026-10-30 15:07:26 | Re: Return INT_MAX or INT_MIN from strtoint() on overflow |
| Previous Message | Sami Imseih | 2026-10-30 14:41:12 | Re: [PATCH] pgstat: Add helper to drop entries from a stats kind's hash |