From: badfilez@gmail.com <badfilez@gmail.com>
To: Peter Geoghegan <pg@bowt.ie>
Cc: pgsql-bugs@lists.postgresql.org
Subject: Re: PG17.6 wal apply bug (SIGSEGV)
Date: Wed, 22 Oct 2025 09:19:37 +0300
Message-ID: <630d3d31-40b2-40c2-b1bf-c857ba88322d@gmail.com> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <CAH2-WzmMFscVSZ5aU2t22WnD+bSU_g7ayZuGGu8SO2PJPAHahg@mail.gmail.com>
References: <d9d1c712-875f-4cef-aeab-e9346cf6a0a3@gmail.com>
<bc81dce6-3e38-46ad-92e1-7783560bb9a2@gmail.com>
<CAH2-WzmMFscVSZ5aU2t22WnD+bSU_g7ayZuGGu8SO2PJPAHahg@mail.gmail.com>
Hi,
Thank you,
there still are 2 broken indexes in master DB,
one of them exactly matches the said relation 151181595.
still,
is it proper wal apply procedure, to segfault in such a case?
On 20/10/2025 20:18, Peter Geoghegan wrote:
> On Mon, Oct 20, 2025 at 1:07 PM badfilez@gmail.com <badfilez@gmail.com> wrote:
>> Program terminated with signal SIGSEGV, Segmentation fault.
>> #0 0x000000000057eff2 in _bt_restore_page (page=0x7f6f48fd1000 "", from=0x7f6fe2eccd80 "", len=<optimized out>) at nbtxlog.c:63
>> 63 itemsz = MAXALIGN(itemsz);
>> (gdb) bt full
> "itemsz = 0" suggests that the index was already corrupt, before the
> WAL record is applied.
>
> I suggest that you use contrib/amcheck (or the pg_amcheck frontend
> program) to ascertain the extent of any index corruption on this
> database.
>
Reply instructions:
You may reply publicly to this message via plain-text email
using any one of the following methods:
* Reply to all the recipients using the --to and --cc options:
reply via email
To: pgsql-bugs@postgresql.org
Cc: badfilez@gmail.com, pg@bowt.ie, pgsql-bugs@lists.postgresql.org
Subject: Re: PG17.6 wal apply bug (SIGSEGV)
In-Reply-To: <630d3d31-40b2-40c2-b1bf-c857ba88322d@gmail.com>
* Save the following mbox file, import it into your mail client,
and reply-to-all from there: mbox
This inbox is served by DDX for PostgreSQL; see mirroring instructions
for how to clone and mirror all data and code used for this inbox