On Mon, Aug 10, 2026 at 10:32:05AM -0500, Bryan Green wrote: > I have been playing in this area with a fork, and looking at it more > closely, this doesn't fix a stock failure. To correct my original note-- > a plain CHECKPOINT doesn't force a segment switch, so that wasn't a real > trigger either. The change just trades a little coverage (exact-equality > would catch a spurious extra segment; >= wouldn't) for tolerance of > concurrent archiving that only happens in the fork. I don't have an > upstream case for it and I'm happy to drop it. If you think the added > tolerance is worth keeping as hygiene, I'll leave that to you.
This one depends on the community buildfarm for me, and it looks like I have lost access to the buildfarm database.. Adding Alexander Lakhin in CC, perhaps he has bumped into a failure on this one. I miss the highlights in the CI, now I have not seen this test show up recently there. @Alexander: Have you noticed some turbulence in the force regarding the recovery test 020_archive_status.pl? -- Michael
signature.asc
Description: PGP signature
