On Fri, Aug 01, 2025 at 10:03:14AM +0530, Amit Kapila wrote:
> We still won't be able to capture the latest LSN in case of
> REORDER_BUFFER_CHANGE_INTERNAL_SPEC_ABORT. IIRC, update_progress_txn
> is used to keep the client active so that when many changes are
> skipped, the client doesn't timeout. In this case, it seems okay to
> use prev_lsn as well.
I am not quite sure to follow your argument here. In the case of a
REORDER_BUFFER_CHANGE_INTERNAL_SPEC_ABORT change, we would use
change->lsn, which is in the case of the patch and HEAD the same
thing: prev_lsn. So the logic is unchanged in the case, isn't it?
--
Michael
