On 9/30/26 4:21 AM, Michael Paquier wrote:
Regarding the test, I only used to reproduce the issue but not reviewed well,
because not sure it's aimed to be included. It may need more polish, i.e.,
advance_wal() has already been defined.
Regarding this part, I am unconvinced that this is worth the cycles
spent on. I am OK to be proved wrong, but for one the test assumes
that we could crash, which is an anti-pattern with the fix in place
because we don't crash once the status flags are not correctly
filtered.
Without the fix, the test fails even without the asserts from the
v2-0002 patch.
--
Best regards,
Vlad
