Fix possible BUGCHECK "cannot find tip page" during validation with -full or -mend option #7857
Conversation
…full or -mend option If a primary record version has a transaction number which is greater than NT and seems corrupted, its state will be treated as tra_active to avoid an attempt to fetch a non-existing TIP page.
The actual value - do you mean it as the number of the last non-active transaction on the TIP? |
Yes, exactly. |
If such corruption is detected, is it possible to fix it safely? Which page can we trust more - the header or the TIP? |
If |
|
Do we expect any more commits inside this PR? Or can it be merged now? |
…o state which number is greater than Next transaction. When -mend option is specified, fix it by advancing Next transaction. 2. Do not call TRA_extend_tip() when it's possible to reconstruct the TIP chain using tip_next from the previous page. Also TRA_extend_tip() call is only allowed when the sequence is not found at the end of the vector. It prevents the potential loss of TIPs because this function unconditionally allocates a new TIP and overwrites tip_next. 3. Check the count of elements in the vector before accessing them to avoid an assertion failure in getElement().
|
Conflicts are solved. Please review. |
If a primary record version has a transaction number which is greater than NT and seems corrupted, its state will be treated as tra_active to avoid an attempt to fetch a non-existing TIP page.