> On Apr 23, 2021, at 11:29 AM, Robert Haas <robertmh...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> On Fri, Apr 23, 2021 at 2:15 PM Mark Dilger
> <mark.dil...@enterprisedb.com> wrote:
>> Another difference I should probably mention is that a bunch of unrelated
>> tests are failing with errors like:
>>
>> toast value 13465 chunk 0 has size 1995, but expected size 1996
>>
>> which leads me to suspect your changes to how the size is calculated.
>
> That seems like a pretty reasonable suspicion, but I can't see the problem:
>
> - expected_size = curchunk < endchunk ? TOAST_MAX_CHUNK_SIZE
> - : VARATT_EXTERNAL_GET_EXTSIZE(ta->toast_pointer) -
> (endchunk * TOAST_MAX_CHUNK_SIZE);
> + expected_size = chunk_seq < last_chunk_seq ? TOAST_MAX_CHUNK_SIZE
> + : extsize % TOAST_MAX_CHUNK_SIZE;
>
> What's different?
>
> 1. The variables are renamed.
>
> 2. It uses a new variable extsize instead of recomputing
> VARATT_EXTERNAL_GET_EXTSIZE(ta->toast_pointer), but I think that
> should have the same value.
>
> 3. I used modulo arithmetic (%) instead of subtracting endchunk *
> TOAST_MAX_CHUNK_SIZE.
>
> Is TOAST_MAX_CHUNK_SIZE 1996? How long a value did you insert?
On my laptop, yes, 1996 is TOAST_MAX_CHUNK_SIZE.
I'm not inserting anything. These failures come from just regular tests that I
have not changed. I just applied your patch and ran `make check-world` and
these fail in src/bin/pg_amcheck
—
Mark Dilger
EnterpriseDB: http://www.enterprisedb.com
The Enterprise PostgreSQL Company
