Message-ID: <630d3d31-40b2-40c2-b1bf-c857ba88322d@gmail.com>
Date: Wed, 22 Oct 2025 09:19:37 +0300
MIME-Version: 1.0
User-Agent: Mozilla Thunderbird
Subject: Re: PG17.6 wal apply bug (SIGSEGV)
To: Peter Geoghegan <pg@bowt.ie>
Cc: pgsql-bugs@lists.postgresql.org
References: <d9d1c712-875f-4cef-aeab-e9346cf6a0a3@gmail.com>
 <bc81dce6-3e38-46ad-92e1-7783560bb9a2@gmail.com>
 <CAH2-WzmMFscVSZ5aU2t22WnD+bSU_g7ayZuGGu8SO2PJPAHahg@mail.gmail.com>
Content-Language: en-US
From: "badfilez@gmail.com" <badfilez@gmail.com>
In-Reply-To: 
 <CAH2-WzmMFscVSZ5aU2t22WnD+bSU_g7ayZuGGu8SO2PJPAHahg@mail.gmail.com>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8; format=flowed
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit
Archived-At: 
 <https://www.postgresql.org/message-id/630d3d31-40b2-40c2-b1bf-c857ba88322d%40gmail.com>
Precedence: bulk

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.
>