On Mon, Jul 27, 2026 at 4:16 PM Ajin Cherian <[email protected]> wrote: > > On Mon, Jul 27, 2026 at 1:21 PM shveta malik <[email protected]> wrote: > > > > On Sun, Jul 26, 2026 at 9:03 PM Rui Zhao <[email protected]> wrote: > > > So if the skip stays as it is, the count should follow it -- counting only > > > status rows whose remote_lsn is non-zero. If instead it goes back to > > > advancing > > > unconditionally, the two line up on their own and the check needs no > > > change. > > > Either is fine by me; it's the pair being out of step that seemed worth > > > mentioning while that behaviour is still being decided. > > > > > > > Okay, I see your point. In that case, I think we should track the > > origin with lsn = 0x0 rather than skip it. To me, this seems more > > understandable than counting only the status rows whose remote_lsn is > > non-zero. > > Updated the patch accordingly, also fixed the few documentation > errors. Attaching v14 >
Thanks for the patches Ajin. I currently have no more comments. I will pause my review here and may resume once it is picked up for commit and final review. thanks Shveta
