Received: from malur.postgresql.org ([217.196.149.56]) by arkaria.postgresql.org with esmtps (TLS1.3) tls TLS_ECDHE_RSA_WITH_AES_256_GCM_SHA384 (Exim 4.94.2) (envelope-from ) id 1uTvMg-00CDnf-Bg for pgsql-bugs@arkaria.postgresql.org; Tue, 24 Jun 2025 04:34:34 +0000 Received: from localhost ([127.0.0.1] helo=malur.postgresql.org) by malur.postgresql.org with esmtp (Exim 4.94.2) (envelope-from ) id 1uTvMd-008yOF-SQ for pgsql-bugs@arkaria.postgresql.org; Tue, 24 Jun 2025 04:34:32 +0000 Received: from makus.postgresql.org ([2001:4800:3e1:1::229]) by malur.postgresql.org with esmtps (TLS1.3) tls TLS_ECDHE_RSA_WITH_AES_256_GCM_SHA384 (Exim 4.94.2) (envelope-from ) id 1uTvMd-008yO7-Jt for pgsql-bugs@lists.postgresql.org; Tue, 24 Jun 2025 04:34:32 +0000 Received: from sss.pgh.pa.us ([68.162.161.243]) by makus.postgresql.org with esmtps (TLS1.3) tls TLS_ECDHE_RSA_WITH_AES_256_GCM_SHA384 (Exim 4.96) (envelope-from ) id 1uTvMc-003fFh-1U for pgsql-bugs@lists.postgresql.org; Tue, 24 Jun 2025 04:34:31 +0000 Received: from sss1.sss.pgh.pa.us (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by sss.pgh.pa.us (8.15.2/8.15.2) with ESMTP id 55O4YQFg859851; Tue, 24 Jun 2025 00:34:26 -0400 From: Tom Lane To: Masahiko Sawada cc: vignesh C , Amit Kapila , "Hayato Kuroda (Fujitsu)" , Duncan Sands , "pgsql-bugs@lists.postgresql.org" Subject: Re: Logical replication 'invalid memory alloc request size 1585837200' after upgrading to 17.5 In-reply-to: References: <680bdaf6-f7d1-4536-b580-05c2760c67c6@deepbluecap.com> <857722.1750738725@sss.pgh.pa.us> Comments: In-reply-to Masahiko Sawada message dated "Tue, 24 Jun 2025 13:22:53 +0900" MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="UTF-8" Content-ID: <859849.1750739666.1@sss.pgh.pa.us> Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit Date: Tue, 24 Jun 2025 00:34:26 -0400 Message-ID: <859850.1750739666@sss.pgh.pa.us> List-Id: List-Help: List-Subscribe: List-Post: List-Owner: List-Archive: Archived-At: Precedence: bulk Masahiko Sawada writes: > On Tue, Jun 24, 2025 at 1:18 PM Tom Lane wrote: >> There is something not right about the v13 version of this patch. > Yes. We've discussed how to fix this test failure and I proposed the > patch for that[1]. If there is no comment and objection, I'm going to > push it to v13. Oh, my apologies for not having kept up on that thread! Both of the proposed patches seem like band-aids, but I'm not sure that it's worth working harder on a branch that has only a few months to live. I'm okay with either solution. regards, tom lane