Hi,

On Mon, 21 Sept 2026 at 14:05, Daniel Gustafsson <[email protected]> wrote:
> > On 18 Sep 2026, at 15:47, Nazir Bilal Yavuz <[email protected]> wrote:
>
> > My idea was that since the WAL needed by the tests has already been
> > flushed, I thought that would be enough for the tests. Also, is using
> > ->lsn('write') considered better for these cases or do you recommend
> > it because of the simplicity?
>
> I prefer when tests have the least amount of special needs setup outside of 
> the
> code under test.  This isn't really making assumptions which make the test
> synthetic though.

That makes sense.


> Another option for going with your patch is to use wait_for_replay_catchup
> which should accomplish the same.

Nice, I updated them with wait_for_replay_catchup().


-- 
Regards,
Nazir Bilal Yavuz
Microsoft

Attachment: v2-0002-Fix-WAL-file-selection-in-checksum-rewind-test.patch
Description: Binary data

Attachment: v2-0001-Avoid-idle-WAL-waits-in-the-checksum-rewind-test.patch
Description: Binary data

Reply via email to