On Mon, Aug 10, 2026 at 10:32:05AM -0500, Bryan Green wrote:
> I have been playing in this area with a fork, and looking at it more
> closely, this doesn't fix a stock failure. To correct my original note--
> a plain CHECKPOINT doesn't force a segment switch, so that wasn't a real
> trigger either. The change just trades a little coverage (exact-equality
> would catch a spurious extra segment; >= wouldn't) for tolerance of
> concurrent archiving that only happens in the fork. I don't have an
> upstream case for it and I'm happy to drop it. If you think the added
> tolerance is worth keeping as hygiene, I'll leave that to you.
This one depends on the community buildfarm for me, and it looks like
I have lost access to the buildfarm database.. Adding Alexander
Lakhin in CC, perhaps he has bumped into a failure on this one.
I miss the highlights in the CI, now I have not seen this test show up
recently there.
@Alexander: Have you noticed some turbulence in the force regarding
the recovery test 020_archive_status.pl?
--
Michael
