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? -- Robert Haas EDB: http://www.enterprisedb.com
