This change is 

Review status: 0 of 3 files reviewed at latest revision, 1 unresolved discussion, some commit checks failed.

pkg/storage/replica.go, line 3655 at r1 (raw file):

	{
		if raftCmd.ReplicatedEvalResult == nil && forcedErr == nil {
			panic("non-proposer-evaluated command found in raft log")

I wonder if this should be more verbose and mention what action the user should take or point to this week's beta release notes.

Comments from Reviewable

Review status: 0 of 3 files reviewed at latest revision, 1 unresolved discussion.

pkg/storage/replica.go, line 3655 at r1 (raw file):

Done.

Comments from Reviewable

Reviewed 3 of 3 files at r1, 1 of 1 files at r2.
Review status: all files reviewed at latest revision, 2 unresolved discussions.

pkg/storage/track_raft_protos.go, line 46 at r1 (raw file):

	whitelist := []string{
		// Some raft operations trigger gossip, but we don't require
		// strict consitency there.

"consistency"

Comments from Reviewable

Reviewed 1 of 1 files at r3.
Review status: all files reviewed at latest revision, 1 unresolved discussion, some commit checks failed.

Comments from Reviewable

I think you caught some build skew related to my rocksdb patch here, can you rebase for good measure?

And now it's (correctly) failing the reference binary acceptance tests. It's time to bump up the version used there.

Added a new commit to update the acceptance tests (it won't pass until cockroachdb/postgres-test#22 is merged and tagged).

Done, and I also swapped the order of the commits so the acceptance tests pass for both of them.

LGTM!