Hi Nick,
On 11 Sep 2026, Nick Ivanov wrote:
> I agree, and I'm attaching a separate patch for that.
Thanks! This looks like the right scope for a backpatch.
I adapted your v2 test for the client-side fix, checking that the slot
already reserves WAL before the server sends the startpoint. It covers
both --create-slot and the default temporary slot, and requires the
backup to succeed after the concurrent checkpoint. Without the fix,
both cases fail with the expected missing-WAL error.
Small wording detail. Another checkpoint is enough to trigger the race.
It need not come from another basebackup. I adjusted and wrapped the
commit message accordingly. Apart from wrapping a comment, the client
code is unchanged.
WDYT?
Best regards, Andrey Borodin.
