On Fri, Jul 18, 2025 at 1:48 PM Amit Kapila <amit.kapila16@gmail.com> wrote:
> On Fri, Jul 18, 2025 at 4:15 PM Alexander Korotkov <aekorotkov@gmail.com> wrote:
> >
> > On Sun, Jun 29, 2025 at 9:22 AM Hayato Kuroda (Fujitsu)
> > <kuroda.hayato@fujitsu.com> wrote:
> > > Thanks everyone who are working on the bug. IIUC the remained task is
> > > to add code comments for avoiding the same mistake again described here:
> > >
> > > > Sounds reasonable. As per analysis till now, it seems removal of new
> > > > assert is correct and we just need to figure out the reason in all
> > > > failure cases as to why the physical slot's restart_lsn goes backward,
> > > > and then add a comment somewhere to ensure that we don't repeat a
> > > > similar mistake in the future.
> > >
> > > I've wrote a draft for that. How do you think?
> >
> > Looks good to me. I'm going to push this if no objections.
> >
>
> As discussed earlier, it is a good idea to add comments in this area.
> But as this is for pre-existing cases, won't it be better to start a
> new thread explaining the cases and a patch? We may get feedback from
> others as well.
OK, done.
https://www.postgresql.org/message-id/CAPpHfdvuyMrUg0Vs5jPfwLOo1M9B-GP5j_My9URnBX0B%3DnrHKw%40mail.gmail.com
------
Regards,
Alexander Korotkov
Supabase
