On Fri, Sep 11, 2026 at 1:40 AM Sami Imseih <[email protected]> wrote: > > > > Not critically important but note that the PopActiveSnapshot and > > > InvalidateCatalogSnapshot call and the comment about "giving up if there > > > is still an active or registered snapshot" have a close relationship; I > > > think it would make sense to keep them together. I would add your new > > > test-and-ereport just before the PopActiveSnapshot() call, to avoid > > > breaking that. > > > > Good catch. +1 for doing that. > > Sure, that works. See the attached.
Thanks. > I think as this is an error reporting bug, maybe we should backpatch to 19? +1 for backpatch. The patch suffices for that purpose, since there's no divergence between v19 and HEAD for this feature currently. For cautiousness, I also asked for an AI review for this patch. Here's what it suggested: 1) Could we use 0/0 instead of $lsn3 for these rejection tests? Since $lsn3 is deliberately unreachable, the first test can hang if the isolation check is missing. 2) Also, the isolation-error pattern matches the old DETAIL, so matching the ERROR: prefix would verify that it is now the primary error. The cursor case better additionally check that the misleading isolation-level detail is absent. -- Regards, Xuneng Zhou HighGo Software Co., Ltd.
