Hi Dilip, On Wed, 14 May 2025 at 08:29, Dilip Kumar <dilipbal...@gmail.com> wrote:
> What I meant wasn’t that the subscriber is moving the confirmed LSN > backward, nor was I suggesting we fix it by persisting the LSN on the > subscriber side. My point was: the fact that the subscriber is sending > an LSN older than one it has already sent, does that indicate a bug on > the subscriber side? And if so, should the logic be fixed there? > In my experience, client applications do a lot of surprisingly not smart things. However, it doesn't mean that the server should be blindly accepting whatever LSN client sends. I tend to agree with Amit, we shouldn't allow confirmed_flush_lsn to move backwards. -- Regards, -- Alexander Kukushkin
