On 9/30/26 4:21 AM, Michael Paquier wrote:
>> Regarding the test, I only used to reproduce the issue but not reviewed well,
>> because not sure it's aimed to be included. It may need more polish, i.e.,
>> advance_wal() has already been defined.
>
> Regarding this part, I am unconvinced that this is worth the cycles
> spent on. I am OK to be proved wrong, but for one the test assumes
> that we could crash, which is an anti-pattern with the fix in place
> because we don't crash once the status flags are not correctly
> filtered.
Without the fix, the test fails even without the asserts from the
v2-0002 patch.
--
Best regards,
Vlad
