Re: Reject WAIT FOR earlier in transaction-snapshot mode

On Fri, Sep 11, 2026 at 11:58 PM Sami Imseih <samimseih(dot)pg(at)gmail(dot)com> 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.