On Tue, Apr 29, 2025 at 3:01 AM Masahiko Sawada <sawada.mshk@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> Your fix looks good to me. Is it worth considering putting an
> assertion to verify if new two_phase_at is equal to or greater than
> confirmed_lsn (or at least it doesn't go backward), when syncing
> two_phase_at?
>
Yeah, it makes sense. But the condition should be reverse
(two_phase_at should be less than or equal to confirmed_flush). I have
done that, changed a few comments, and committed the patch.
--
With Regards,
Amit Kapila.