On Tue, Apr 22, 2025 at 06:22:51AM +0000, Bertrand Drouvot wrote:
> Yeah, unless that might come from fc415edf8ca but I don't think that's the case.
I've been eyeing this whole area of the code for a few hours to
convince myself on HEAD, and I cannot really find a defect directly
related to it.
I am wondering if we should do a PGSTAT_BACKEND_FLUSH_WAL in the WAL
sender, but the end of any transaction happening in a logical WAL
sender would make sure that this happens on a periodic basis.
Anyway, sorry for make everybody waiting here. I've now removed the
assertion down to v15.
--
Michael