Dear hackers, Thanks everyone who are working on the bug. IIUC the remained task is to add code comments for avoiding the same mistake again described here:
> Sounds reasonable. As per analysis till now, it seems removal of new > assert is correct and we just need to figure out the reason in all > failure cases as to why the physical slot's restart_lsn goes backward, > and then add a comment somewhere to ensure that we don't repeat a > similar mistake in the future. I've wrote a draft for that. How do you think? Best regards, Hayato Kuroda FUJITSU LIMITED
0001-Update-comment-for-last_saved_restart_lsn.patch
Description: 0001-Update-comment-for-last_saved_restart_lsn.patch
