Received: from malur.postgresql.org ([217.196.149.56]) by arkaria.postgresql.org with esmtps (TLS1.2:ECDHE_RSA_AES_256_CBC_SHA1:256) (Exim 4.89) (envelope-from ) id 1if5W8-0007W4-Mc for pgsql-hackers@arkaria.postgresql.org; Wed, 11 Dec 2019 17:11:16 +0000 Received: from localhost ([127.0.0.1] helo=malur.postgresql.org) by malur.postgresql.org with esmtp (Exim 4.89) (envelope-from ) id 1if5W7-0000nx-Ff for pgsql-hackers@arkaria.postgresql.org; Wed, 11 Dec 2019 17:11:15 +0000 Received: from magus.postgresql.org ([2a02:c0:301:0:ffff::29]) by malur.postgresql.org with esmtps (TLS1.2:ECDHE_RSA_AES_256_CBC_SHA1:256) (Exim 4.89) (envelope-from ) id 1if5W7-0000nl-5T; Wed, 11 Dec 2019 17:11:15 +0000 Received: from sss.pgh.pa.us ([66.207.139.130]) by magus.postgresql.org with esmtps (TLS1.2:ECDHE_RSA_AES_256_CBC_SHA1:256) (Exim 4.89) (envelope-from ) id 1if5W3-0004PY-6o; Wed, 11 Dec 2019 17:11:12 +0000 Received: from sss1.sss.pgh.pa.us (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by sss.pgh.pa.us (8.14.4/8.14.4) with ESMTP id xBBHB3Be019043; Wed, 11 Dec 2019 12:11:03 -0500 From: Tom Lane To: Andres Freund cc: "Drouvot, Bertrand" , Tomas Vondra , "pgsql-bugs@postgresql.org" , PostgreSQL-development , "Schneider (AWS), Jeremy" Subject: Re: logical decoding bug: segfault in ReorderBufferToastReplace() In-reply-to: <20191211163522.t2ljtydarlmusoix@alap3.anarazel.de> References: <20191205133836.lulisfo2fphdrjp3@development> <20191211163522.t2ljtydarlmusoix@alap3.anarazel.de> Comments: In-reply-to Andres Freund message dated "Wed, 11 Dec 2019 08:35:22 -0800" MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Content-ID: <19041.1576084263.1@sss.pgh.pa.us> Date: Wed, 11 Dec 2019 12:11:03 -0500 Message-ID: <19042.1576084263@sss.pgh.pa.us> List-Id: List-Help: List-Subscribe: List-Post: List-Owner: List-Archive: Precedence: bulk Andres Freund writes: > This indicates that a toast record was present for that relation, > despite: > [ \d that looks like the table isn't wide enough for that ] > I think we need to see pg_waldump output for the preceding records. That > might allow us to see why there's a toast record that's being associated > with this table, despite there not being a toast table. I don't think you can make that conclusion. Perhaps the table once needed a toast table because of some wide column that got dropped; if so, it'd still have one. It'd be safer to look at pg_class.reltoastrelid to verify existence (or not) of the toast relation. It strikes me that there could easily be cases where a publisher table has a toast relation and a subscriber's doesn't ... maybe this code isn't expecting that? regards, tom lane