> 1) Could we use 0/0 instead of $lsn3 for these rejection tests? Since
> $lsn3 is deliberately unreachable, the first test can hang if the
> isolation check is missing.
I think I will keep this as-is. If the isolation-level rejection is
missing, the test is broken.
> 2) Also, the isolation-error pattern matches the old DETAIL, so
> matching the ERROR: prefix would verify that it is now the primary
> error.
v4 tightens the new recovery tests so the REPEATABLE READ cases match
the primary ERROR line, rather than the old DETAIL text. I also cleaned
up one test description.
> The cursor case better additionally check that the misleading
> isolation-level detail is absent.
I don't think we need that. The cursor case only needs to verify the
new primary error.
--
Sami Imseih
Amazon Web Services (AWS)
