On Fri, Jul 18, 2025 at 1:48 PM Amit Kapila <amit.kapil...@gmail.com> wrote: > On Fri, Jul 18, 2025 at 4:15 PM Alexander Korotkov <aekorot...@gmail.com> > wrote: > > > > On Sun, Jun 29, 2025 at 9:22 AM Hayato Kuroda (Fujitsu) > > <kuroda.hay...@fujitsu.com> wrote: > > > Thanks everyone who are working on the bug. IIUC the remained task is > > > to add code comments for avoiding the same mistake again described here: > > > > > > > Sounds reasonable. As per analysis till now, it seems removal of new > > > > assert is correct and we just need to figure out the reason in all > > > > failure cases as to why the physical slot's restart_lsn goes backward, > > > > and then add a comment somewhere to ensure that we don't repeat a > > > > similar mistake in the future. > > > > > > I've wrote a draft for that. How do you think? > > > > Looks good to me. I'm going to push this if no objections. > > > > As discussed earlier, it is a good idea to add comments in this area. > But as this is for pre-existing cases, won't it be better to start a > new thread explaining the cases and a patch? We may get feedback from > others as well.
OK, done. https://www.postgresql.org/message-id/CAPpHfdvuyMrUg0Vs5jPfwLOo1M9B-GP5j_My9URnBX0B%3DnrHKw%40mail.gmail.com ------ Regards, Alexander Korotkov Supabase
