On Fri, Sep 11, 2026 at 11:58 PM Sami Imseih <[email protected]> wrote: > > > 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. > > I think I will keep this as-is. If the isolation-level rejection is > missing, the test is broken. > > > 2) Also, the isolation-error pattern matches the old DETAIL, so > > matching the ERROR: prefix would verify that it is now the primary > > error. > > v4 tightens the new recovery tests so the REPEATABLE READ cases match > the primary ERROR line, rather than the old DETAIL text. I also cleaned > up one test description. > > > The cursor case better additionally check that the misleading > > isolation-level detail is absent. > > I don't think we need that. The cursor case only needs to verify the > new primary error.
Thanks. I am OK with your judgement! -- Regards, Xuneng Zhou HighGo Software Co., Ltd.
