On Mon, Dec 13, 2021 at 03:46:55PM +0530, Amit Kapila wrote:
> This is my understanding as well. I think here the point of Sawada-San
> is why to have additional for replorigin_session_origin_lsn in prepare
> code path? I think the way you have it in your patch is correct as
> well but it is probably better to keep the check only based on
> replorigin so as to keep this check consistent in all code paths.
Well, I don't think that it is a big deal one way or the other, as
we'd finish with InvalidXLogRecPtr for the LSN and 0 for the timestamp
anyway. If both of you feel that just removing the assertion rather
than adding an extra check is better, that's fine by me :)
--
Michael