Received: from malur.postgresql.org ([217.196.149.56]) by arkaria.postgresql.org with esmtps (TLS1.3:ECDHE_RSA_AES_256_GCM_SHA384:256) (Exim 4.92) (envelope-from ) id 1poQbn-0001hO-TH for pgsql-hackers@arkaria.postgresql.org; Mon, 17 Apr 2023 15:17:35 +0000 Received: from localhost ([127.0.0.1] helo=malur.postgresql.org) by malur.postgresql.org with esmtp (Exim 4.92) (envelope-from ) id 1poQao-0006ob-3N for pgsql-hackers@arkaria.postgresql.org; Mon, 17 Apr 2023 15:16:34 +0000 Received: from magus.postgresql.org ([2a02:c0:301:0:ffff::29]) by malur.postgresql.org with esmtps (TLS1.3:ECDHE_RSA_AES_256_GCM_SHA384:256) (Exim 4.92) (envelope-from ) id 1poQan-0006oR-Q0 for pgsql-hackers@lists.postgresql.org; Mon, 17 Apr 2023 15:16:33 +0000 Received: from sss.pgh.pa.us ([66.207.139.130]) by magus.postgresql.org with esmtps (TLS1.3) tls TLS_ECDHE_RSA_WITH_AES_256_GCM_SHA384 (Exim 4.94.2) (envelope-from ) id 1poQal-003Rzk-D3 for pgsql-hackers@postgresql.org; Mon, 17 Apr 2023 15:16:33 +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 33HFGUbq2427397; Mon, 17 Apr 2023 11:16:30 -0400 From: Tom Lane To: Justin Pryzby cc: pgsql-hackers@postgresql.org Subject: Re: v16dev: TRAP: failed Assert("size > SizeOfXLogRecord"), File: "xlog.c", Line: 1055, PID: 13564 In-reply-to: References: Comments: In-reply-to Justin Pryzby message dated "Mon, 17 Apr 2023 09:53:30 -0500" MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Content-ID: <2427395.1681744590.1@sss.pgh.pa.us> Date: Mon, 17 Apr 2023 11:16:30 -0400 Message-ID: <2427396.1681744590@sss.pgh.pa.us> List-Id: List-Help: List-Subscribe: List-Post: List-Owner: List-Archive: Archived-At: Precedence: bulk Justin Pryzby writes: > I hit this assertion while pg_restoring data into a v16 instance. > postgresql16-server-16-alpha_20230417_PGDG.rhel7.x86_64 > wal_level=minimal and pg_dump --single-transaction both seem to be > required to hit the issue. Hmm. I wonder if log_newpages() is confused here: XLogEnsureRecordSpace(XLR_MAX_BLOCK_ID - 1, 0); Why is XLR_MAX_BLOCK_ID - 1 enough, rather than XLR_MAX_BLOCK_ID? regards, tom lane