On Tue, Apr 29, 2025 at 3:01 AM Masahiko Sawada <sawada.m...@gmail.com> wrote: > > Your fix looks good to me. Is it worth considering putting an > assertion to verify if new two_phase_at is equal to or greater than > confirmed_lsn (or at least it doesn't go backward), when syncing > two_phase_at? >
Yeah, it makes sense. But the condition should be reverse (two_phase_at should be less than or equal to confirmed_flush). I have done that, changed a few comments, and committed the patch. -- With Regards, Amit Kapila.
