One more try to get the range check for overflow records correct.

1 files changed, 16 insertions, 3 deletions

diff --git a/src/btree/bt_slvg.c b/src/btree/bt_slvg.c
index 6a4bee61392..3d1e1822e93 100644
--- a/src/btree/bt_slvg.c
+++ b/src/btree/bt_slvg.c
@@ -1328,8 +1328,8 @@ __slvg_col_merge_ovfl(WT_SESSION_IMPL *session,
 	uint32_t i;
 
 	/*
-	 * We're merging a row-store page, and we took some number of records,
-	 * figure out which (if any) overflow records we used.
+	 * Merging a variable-length column-store page, and we took some number
+	 * of records, figure out which (if any) overflow records we used.
 	 */
 	recno = page->pg_var_recno;
 	start = recno + skip;
@@ -1340,7 +1340,20 @@ __slvg_col_merge_ovfl(WT_SESSION_IMPL *session,
 		__wt_cell_unpack(cell, &unpack);
 		recno += __wt_cell_rle(&unpack);
 
-		if (recno >= start && unpack.type == WT_CELL_VALUE_OVFL)
+		/*
+		 * I keep getting this calculation wrong, so here's the logic.
+		 * Start is the first record we want, stop is the last record
+		 * we want. The record number has already been incremented one
+		 * past the maximum record number for this page entry, that is,
+		 * it's set to the first record number for the next page entry.
+		 * The test of start should be greater-than (not greater-than-
+		 * or-equal), because of that increment, if the record number
+		 * equals start, we want the next record, not this one.  The
+		 * test against stop is greater-than, not greater-than-or-equal
+		 * because stop is the last record wanted, if the record number
+		 * equals stop, we want the next record.
+		 */
+		if (recno > start && unpack.type == WT_CELL_VALUE_OVFL)
 			WT_RET(__slvg_col_merge_ovfl_single(
 			    session, trk, &unpack));
 		if (recno > stop)