On Sat, Sep 12, 2026 at 10:48 AM Xuneng Zhou <[email protected]> wrote: > > 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!
Here's a rebase due to a23ab4862cf. -- Regards, Xuneng Zhou HighGo Software Co., Ltd.
v5-0001-Fix-WAIT-FOR-rejection-errors.patch
Description: Binary data
