Re: BUG #14189: Corrupted WAL through replication protocol

> 20 =D0=B8=D1=8E=D0=BD=D1=8F 2016 =D0=B3., =D0=B2 20:36, Alvaro Herrera =
<alvherre@2ndquadrant.com> =D0=BD=D0=B0=D0=BF=D0=B8=D1=81=D0=B0=D0=BB(=D0=B0=
):
>=20
> root@simply.name wrote:
>=20
>> root@xdb2018f /tmp # /usr/pgsql-9.5/bin/pg_xlogdump =
/tmp/normal/00000001000024DB00000072 =
/tmp/normal/00000001000024DB00000072 | fgrep -C1 24DB/72095CC8
>=20
> So the problem record is:
>=20
>> rmgr: Gin         len (rec/tot):      2/   412, tx:  193820712, lsn: =
24DB/72095E50, prev 24DB/72095CC8, desc: INSERT isdata: F isleaf: T =
isdelete: T, blkref #0: rel 1663/16400/18030 blk 368350
>=20
> for which you got this message:
>=20
>> root@xdb2018f /tmp # /usr/pgsql-9.5/bin/pg_xlogdump =
/tmp/problem/00000001000024DB00000072 =
/tmp/problem/00000001000024DB00000072 | fgrep -C1 24DB/72095CC8
>> pg_xlogdump: FATAL:  error in WAL record at 24DB/72095E50: unexpected =
pageaddr 24D9/23096000 in log segment 00000000000024DB00000072, offset =
614400
>=20
> This is very odd.  24D9/23096000 looks like a valid address, perhaps
> something that was left uninitialized from a previous write rather =
than
> random corruption.
>=20
> I don't suppose you can reproduce this at will, can you?

No, I can=E2=80=99t. Let=E2=80=99s think about this case as =
non-reproducable and just keep this report for history. Maybe someone =
will also hit it.

>=20
> --=20
> =C3=81lvaro Herrera                http://www.2ndQuadrant.com/
> PostgreSQL Development, 24x7 Support, Remote DBA, Training & Services


--
May the force be with you=E2=80=A6
https://simply.name