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 1pF9In-0004Oi-NU for pgsql-hackers@arkaria.postgresql.org; Tue, 10 Jan 2023 07:44:10 +0000 Received: from localhost ([127.0.0.1] helo=malur.postgresql.org) by malur.postgresql.org with esmtp (Exim 4.92) (envelope-from ) id 1pF9Im-0008GN-8d for pgsql-hackers@arkaria.postgresql.org; Tue, 10 Jan 2023 07:44:08 +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 1pF9Ik-0008F4-BP for pgsql-hackers@lists.postgresql.org; Tue, 10 Jan 2023 07:44:07 +0000 Received: from out4-smtp.messagingengine.com ([66.111.4.28]) by magus.postgresql.org with esmtps (TLS1.3:ECDHE_RSA_AES_256_GCM_SHA384:256) (Exim 4.92) (envelope-from ) id 1pF9Ic-0003TL-0N for pgsql-hackers@lists.postgresql.org; Tue, 10 Jan 2023 07:44:05 +0000 Received: from compute3.internal (compute3.nyi.internal [10.202.2.43]) by mailout.nyi.internal (Postfix) with ESMTP id 6F7F05C010F; Tue, 10 Jan 2023 02:43:55 -0500 (EST) Received: from mailfrontend1 ([10.202.2.162]) by compute3.internal (MEProxy); Tue, 10 Jan 2023 02:43:55 -0500 DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=paquier.xyz; h= cc:cc:content-type:date:date:from:from:in-reply-to:message-id :mime-version:reply-to:sender:subject:subject:to:to; s=fm3; t= 1673336635; x=1673423035; bh=uqM4iW7ohy/ZrOLnlvn46MuAH1hCI1+yuAk a/n/EI4o=; b=fpMXF0Ko1vT/r5++/a+xx+FEH/tQtu5LCo0k/vrDJpxfSoTrC4o /OTNdB1eDL9CPwAWtbNHMVwVOlM4sYio2FjmBLf1hfcR0+HO7cwmJgIthPOesBAE PiX3NiHWyY6JTRUUnf0JDO22QYSWbR0adTCveXrVpzgDFt9Y1O0xU0QfTOTOg0vi EAZwy5UlpBoVkfC3P/VqhNqs2Ilu//0TPxotK9TXq0pmS9Pbw9LZm8oXvdqZcgC8 LfqQWIcxdleijQ0VeWlagzUnU3vqkjEU8Z8r2FPUVqHW05Ge5H4J/GpVGrkwn9F4 L/Hb+maTMbAFd2j5uALlWQjMOq7usUzmyFQ== DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d= messagingengine.com; h=cc:cc:content-type:date:date:feedback-id :feedback-id:from:from:in-reply-to:message-id:mime-version :reply-to:sender:subject:subject:to:to:x-me-proxy:x-me-proxy :x-me-sender:x-me-sender:x-sasl-enc; s=fm3; t=1673336635; x= 1673423035; bh=uqM4iW7ohy/ZrOLnlvn46MuAH1hCI1+yuAka/n/EI4o=; b=n lPLzb/2sFrTPneT5ubPX6SonDhW1cSYIh410xotQvpvsFKmEFmcF/qawGlvYmqg2 4dZQXmPqF8SDZNDDt20N2pvZn8JLU+Wwq6BRUk7NnC46Rk3FTmty6MlhpVgHNDVt Mmtp7/qKlGoergqpXrtkoQJHv9WSoFwRwOCmCPwAGmn2ACP7NuZubq011rTEPflT hVwkRyZzfcUki1NWpZDGChMTS575rZLNGB40be0GVWEhXrFcjnhcGosFNREK4LzD u7dB0EkWsn8kVMIpEGC8IFpFT6idYC+1ALH4cyQfuobBcnJc9FViMl3fB2kJNR2v ZuLRmlbswYvc0OhQLhGwA== X-ME-Sender: X-ME-Received: X-ME-Proxy-Cause: gggruggvucftvghtrhhoucdtuddrgedvhedrkeejgdduudefucetufdoteggodetrfdotf fvucfrrhhofhhilhgvmecuhfgrshhtofgrihhlpdfqfgfvpdfurfetoffkrfgpnffqhgen uceurghilhhouhhtmecufedttdenucesvcftvggtihhpihgvnhhtshculddquddttddmne gfrhhlucfvnfffucdlfeehmdenucfjughrpeffhffvvefukfggtggusehgtderredttddv necuhfhrohhmpefoihgthhgrvghlucfrrghquhhivghruceomhhitghhrggvlhesphgrqh huihgvrhdrgiihiieqnecuggftrfgrthhtvghrnhepgfethfduhffhtdeiheefffefledu leeikeekvdegffehgeetjedutdeffeeuudetnecuffhomhgrihhnpehpohhsthhgrhgvsh hqlhdrohhrghenucevlhhushhtvghrufhiiigvpedtnecurfgrrhgrmhepmhgrihhlfhhr ohhmpehmihgthhgrvghlsehprghquhhivghrrdighiii X-ME-Proxy: Feedback-ID: i0fe9450f:Fastmail Received: by mail.messagingengine.com (Postfix) with ESMTPA; Tue, 10 Jan 2023 02:43:53 -0500 (EST) Date: Tue, 10 Jan 2023 16:43:49 +0900 From: Michael Paquier To: Postgres hackers Cc: "Imseih (AWS), Sami" , Nathan Bossart Subject: Avoiding "wrong tuple length" errors at the end of VACUUM on pg_database update (Backpatch of 947789f to v12 and v13) Message-ID: MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: multipart/signed; micalg=pgp-sha512; protocol="application/pgp-signature"; boundary="12UfUgNlKWFAnxWk" Content-Disposition: inline List-Id: List-Help: List-Subscribe: List-Post: List-Owner: List-Archive: Archived-At: Precedence: bulk --12UfUgNlKWFAnxWk Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Disposition: inline Hi all, The problem mentioned in $subject has been discussed here: https://www.postgresql.org/message-id/DM5PR0501MB38800D9E4605BCA72DD35557CCE10@DM5PR0501MB3880.namprd05.prod.outlook.com Ths issue has been fixed by 947789f, without a backpatch to v12 (as per 96cdeae) as the risk seemed rather limited seen from here, back when the problem was discussed. Unfortunately, I have seen customer deployments on v12 and v13 playing with pg_database entries large enough that they would have toast entries and would be able to trigger the problem fixed in v14 at the end of a vacuum. Any objections about getting 947789f applied to REL_13_STABLE and REL_12_STABLE and see this issue completely gone from all the versions supported? Thanks, -- Michael --12UfUgNlKWFAnxWk Content-Type: application/pgp-signature; name="signature.asc" -----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE----- iQIzBAABCgAdFiEEG72nH6vTowiyblFKnvQgOdbyQH0FAmO9FzUACgkQnvQgOdby QH2E2A//Rkkgz1yQeurgMRE0PF9zF2b7tOWs0QeTY1MijvNHdOXK/vsxYV5yWaiL DC6PSxcTff5MCbqLeTn+iUvFEX3Yb8/W6LZq20tZyiS/aPrI9K5Uw0tdjJPUU8XD 2SOWc/iih6ruO4/JC3F1y9eeWXkqrYFUxM9ASwHSTAoU0eC1I8ujoGUBpFWmeT8b Zj3HBR7125Jvr9U3IrC4WpMhCG2r5A3GqwBWiFodPrjT6Cqy80tQ/+wQ6uw/WnXM Qo6/bObqmVZ5/PG8krdeKGreow4pvvaaYOokaovCBFgCKV4FUp0IETpyrlKUnxUT nkUGYl9GfNrdxAUjMAbM4iUqTFHrNc9WjZ8mvLItW+NUePeFSOzWBdM4+50U129P B/yrz6ZzL5b4QKKd1CaVm1NSvn4aDd8GCh4osDwm5gqTO9uajyi1oEwNB+3yOW0z lfQ/RvIA73iRHSWg0sPj0jt8Xp0nIe/kfqo33Ie1XMICHEXhCSI34uBk2Q9vh0sJ Rr2Si/zdO3Hl2zyk97epI36HPGD1yBGM9+TFFbqvmOfpcYT89pKWlFvAtdF4Kjgr djeYTLKyr4GEZCowT5ep8KWUxFGCUH2xshL1L5/M3mzpMjjBedng+64hUfAYtK5y rLB10oQ1BdDr+x5liWBzuCK3y0rWrV4GV5rl8U4YFPFPGRMHD0o= =QjiK -----END PGP SIGNATURE----- --12UfUgNlKWFAnxWk--