On Mon, 3 Aug 2026 at 01:21, Michael Paquier <[email protected]> wrote: > > On Sun, Aug 02, 2026 at 04:08:17PM +0900, Michael Paquier wrote: > > - newSize += XLOG_BLCKSZ - (newSize % XLOG_BLCKSZ); > > + Assert(reclength <= INT32_MAX - BLCKSZ); > > + > > + newSize = TYPEALIGN(XLOG_BLCKSZ, reclength); > > > > Am I reading a typo here or the INT32_MAX is missing a 'PG_U'? > > XLogRecordMaxSize cannot reach that, just wondering about a > > consistency argument with the surrounding type declarations for these > > length variables.
Yes, that was an oversight in my submission. It's been changed to XLogRecordMaxSize, with a new comment, in the attached patch. > Another thing to note: this basically breaks the recovery test > 039_end_of_wal.pl. Could you look at that please? Also fixed, including a new test case for >XLogRecordMaxSize. -Matthias
v4-0001-Fix-XLogReader-mishandling-of-oversized-multi-pag.patch
Description: Binary data
