Re: wal_consistency_checking reports an inconsistency on masterbranch

On Thu, Apr 12, 2018 at 03:36:12PM -0700, Peter Geoghegan wrote:
> Without having looked at it in much detail, this seems rather more
> likely to be the fault of 2f178441. That was recent enough that it's
> easy to believe that I'd be the first to notice it, and actually has
> on-disk changes, in the form of ItemPointerSetMovedPartitions().

Since f16241be the following comment has been added to heap_mask():
/*
 * NB: Not ignoring ctid changes due to the tuple having moved
 * (i.e. HeapTupleHeaderIndicatesMovedPartitions), because that's
 * important information that needs to be in-sync between primary
 * and standby, and thus is WAL logged.
 */

And actually, if you remove this query from update.sql, then the
consistency checks are able to finish:
UPDATE upview set c = 120 WHERE b = 4;

This triggers in the test suite a CHECK violation but this should not
result in a row being moved as even c is updated it would remain on the
same child partition so no rows are moved across partitions here.

Could this be pointing to an older issue?
--
Michael