On Sat, Jun 11, 2022 at 09:25:48PM +0200, Matthias van de Meent wrote: > Did you initiate a new cluster or otherwise skip the invalid record > you generated when running the instance based on master? It seems to > me you're trying to replay the invalid record (len > MaxAllocSize), > and this patch does not try to fix that issue. This patch just tries > to forbid emitting records larger than MaxAllocSize, as per the check > in XLogRecordAssemble, so that we wont emit unreadable records into > the WAL anymore. > > Reading unreadable records still won't be possible, but that's also > not something I'm trying to fix.
As long as you cannot generate such WAL records that should be fine as
wAL is not reused across upgrades, so this kind of restriction is a
no-brainer on HEAD. The back-patching argument is not on the table
anyway, as some of the routine signatures change with the unsigned
arguments, because of those safety checks.
+ if (unlikely(num_rdatas >= max_rdatas) ||
+ unlikely(!AllocSizeIsValid((uint64) mainrdata_len + (uint64) len)))
+ XLogErrorDataLimitExceeded();
[...]
+inline void
+XLogErrorDataLimitExceeded()
+{
+ elog(ERROR, "too much WAL data");
+}
The three checks are different, OK.. Note that static is missing.
+ if (unlikely(!AllocSizeIsValid(total_len)))
+ XLogErrorDataLimitExceeded();
Rather than a single check at the end of XLogRecordAssemble(), you'd
better look after that each time total_len is added up?
--
Michael
signature.asc
Description: PGP signature
