On Sat, Sep 10, 2022 at 10:00 AM Thomas Munro <thomas.munro@gmail.com> wrote:
> On Sat, Sep 10, 2022 at 9:45 AM Tom Lane <tgl@sss.pgh.pa.us> wrote:
> > Masahiko Sawada <sawada.mshk@gmail.com> writes:
> > > It's likely that the commit f6c5edb8abcac04eb3eac6da356e59d399b2bcef
> > > is relevant.
> >
> > Noting that the errors have only appeared in the past couple of
> > days, I'm now suspicious of adb466150b44d1eaf43a2d22f58ff4c545a0ed3f
> > (Fix recovery_prefetch with low maintenance_io_concurrency).
>
> Yeah, I also just spotted the coincidence of those failures while
> monitoring the build farm. I'll look into this later today. My
> initial suspicion is that there was pre-existing code here that was
> (incorrectly?) relying on the lack of error reporting in that case.
> But maybe I misunderstood and it was incorrect to report the error for
> some reason that was not robustly covered with tests.
After I wrote that I saw Sawada-san's message and waited for more
information, and I see there was now a commit. I noticed that
peripatus was already logging the 'missing contrecord' error even when
it didn't fail the test, and still does. I'm still looking into that
(ie whether I need to take that new report_invalid_record() call out
and replace it with errormsg_deferred = true so that XLogReadRecord()
returns NULL with no error message in this case).