Re: ERROR: invalid memory alloc request size 18446744073709551613

Hello Rob,

You mean, an insert or update carrying this value? No, it doesn’t.

Thanks,
Flaris.

Flaris R. Feller
flaris(dot)feller(at)gmail(dot)com
http://linkedin.com/in/flarisfeller

> Em 22 de jun de 2020, à(s) 11:28, Rob Sargent <robjsargent(at)gmail(dot)com> escreveu:
>
> 
>
>> On Jun 22, 2020, at 8:13 AM, Flaris Feller <flaris(dot)feller(at)gmail(dot)com> wrote:
>>
>> Hello all,
>>
>> When using Postgres 9.6.15 on "CentOS Linux release 7.5.1804 (Core)" on Intel x86_64 I noticed "invalid memory alloc request size" error at PostgreSQL logs.
>> This is the postgresq.log file's fragment of log where the error was found.
>>
>> 2020-06-22 00:29:18 BRT [16987]: [1-1] db=bxs,user=postgres ERRO: invalid memory alloc request size 18446744073709551613
>> 2020-06-22 00:29:18 BRT [16987]: [2-1] db=bxs,user=postgres COMANDO: COPY public.cham_chamada....
>>
>> PostgreSQL was installed using official PGDG repository through yum.
>> This is the list of postgresql.conf settings used in the cluster.
>>
>> listen_addresses = '*'
>> log_destination = 'stderr'
>> logging_collector = on
>> log_directory = 'pg_log'
>> log_filename = 'postgresql-%a.log'
>> log_truncate_on_rotation = on
>> log_rotation_age = 1d
>> log_rotation_size = 0
>> autovacuum = off
>> datestyle = 'iso, mdy'
>> lc_messages = 'pt_BR'
>> lc_monetary = 'pt_BR'
>> lc_numeric = 'pt_BR'
>> lc_time = 'pt_BR'
>> default_text_search_config = 'pg_catalog.portuguese'
>> max_connections=150
>> shared_buffers=2GB
>> effective_cache_size=4GB
>> work_mem=13981kB
>> maintenance_work_mem=256MB
>> log_min_duration_statement = 300000
>> log_line_prefix = '%t [%p]: [%l-1] db=%d,user=%u '
>> log_lock_waits = on
>> timezone='America/Sao_paulo'
>> log_timezone = 'Brazil/East'
>> min_wal_size = 1GB
>> max_wal_size = 2GB
>>
>> Looking at previous list's messages I've found this could be a data corruption issue and I've followed the recommended procedures.
>> But even removing the corrupted records, doing a vacuum full and re-indexing the table the problem keep going recurrently.
>> So I would like some guidance to find the root cause of the table corruption on the database.
>> Any help would be appreciated.
>>
>> Thanks in advance,
>> Flaris Feller.
>
> I there an application generating this value perhaps?
> 1111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111101
> Looks a little like a signed/un-signed mismatch
>
>