> I think what you're arguing is that we should see WAL records filling the > rest of segment 1 before we see any references to segment 2, but if that's > the case then how did we get into the situation you reported? Or is it > just that it was a broken base backup to start with?
The scenario I could come up with that didn't require a broken base backup was that there was an earlier truncate or vacuum. So the sequence is high offset reference, truncate, growth, crash. All possibly on a single database. It's possible we're better off not assuming we've thought of all possible ways this can happen though.
