Re: BUG #17928: Standby fails to decode WAL on termination of primary

On Sat, Aug 12, 2023 at 11:56:45AM +1200, Thomas Munro wrote:
> On Sat, Aug 12, 2023 at 2:00 AM Noah Misch <noah(at)leadboat(dot)com> wrote:
>> On Fri, Aug 11, 2023 at 03:08:26PM +0900, Michael Paquier wrote:
>> I recall earlier messages theorizing that it was just harder to hit in v14, so
>> I'm disinclined to stop at v15. I think the main choice is whether to stop at
>> v11 (normal choice) or v12 (worry about breaking the last v11 point release).
>> I don't have a strong opinion between those.

Okay. I wouldn't be inclined to patch v11 for that, FWIW, as this
code path is touched by recovery and more. At least it does not seem
worth taking any risk compared to the potential gain.

> Thanks for working on this.
>
> I wonder if we need a more explicit way to construct pages with the
> right bits to reach interesting test cases and get full enough
> coverage... (Cf throwing SQL at the WAL to see if it sticks.)

You mean SQL functions that write an arbitrary set of bytes at a given
LSN, to trigger some expected behavior on a follow-up crash recovery?
--
Michael