> On 14 Aug 2026, at 07:47, Bertrand Drouvot <[email protected]> > wrote:
> Thanks for the updates! Thanks for review! > +# Regardless of the new state, pg_control_init() should still report > checksums > +# as off. > > Could we also test the opposite case and ensure pg_control_init() still > reports 1? > Also, as 0001 fixes the offline case too, worth checking pg_checksums leaves > the value > reported by pg_control_init() unchanged? Sure, I can add that as well. > And should this test be part of 0001 instead of 0002? Agreed, it should. > + version using an integer representation due to how they were originally > + implementated. > > s/implementated/implemented/ Thanks, will fix. -- Daniel Gustafsson
