On Tue, Sep 26, 2023 at 06:28:30PM -0700, Noah Misch wrote:
> On Wed, Sep 27, 2023 at 11:06:37AM +1300, Thomas Munro wrote:
>> What Michael wants to do now is remove the 2004-era assumption that
>> malloc failure implies bogus data. It must be pretty unlikely in a 64
>> bit world with overcommitted virtual memory, but a legitimate
>> xl_tot_len can falsely end recovery and lose data, as reported from a
>> production case analysed by his colleagues. In other words, we can
>> actually distinguish between lack of resources and recycled bogus
>> data, so why treat them the same?
>
> Indeed. Hard failure is fine, and ENOMEM=end-of-WAL definitely isn't.
Are there any more comments and/or suggestions here?
If none, I propose to apply the patch to switch to palloc() instead of
palloc_extended(NO_OOM) in this code around the beginning of next
week, down to 12.
--
Michael