Andres Freund <and...@anarazel.de> writes: > On 2022-08-04 19:01:06 -0400, Tom Lane wrote: >> (This seems worth fixing before beta3, as it looks like a rather >> nasty data corruption hazard.)
> Ugh, yes. And even with this fixed I think this should grow at least an
> assertion that the block numbers match, probably even an elog.
Yeah, the assumption that P_NEW would automatically match the source block
was making me itchy too. An explicit test-and-elog seems worth the
cycles.
regards, tom lane
