Re: Synchronizing slots from primary to standby

On Thu, Jan 25, 2024 at 1:25 PM Bertrand Drouvot
<bertranddrouvot(dot)pg(at)gmail(dot)com> wrote:
>
> On Thu, Jan 25, 2024 at 02:57:30AM +0000, Zhijie Hou (Fujitsu) wrote:
> >
> > Agreed. I split the original 0001 patch into 3 patches as suggested.
> > Here is the V68 patch set.

Thanks, I have pushed 0001.

>
> Thanks!
>
> Some comments.
>
> Looking at 0002:
>
> 1 ===
>
> + <para>The following options are supported:</para>
>
> What about "The following option is supported"? (as currently only the "FAILOVER"
> is)
>
> 2 ===
>
> What about adding some TAP tests too? (I can see that ALTER_REPLICATION_SLOT test
> is added in v68-0004 but I think having some in 0002 would make sense too).
>

The subscription tests in v68-0003 will test this functionality. The
one advantage of adding separate tests for this is that if in the
future we extend this replication command, it could be convenient to
test various options. However, the same could be said about existing
replication commands as well. But is it worth having extra tests which
will be anyway covered in the next commit in a few days?

I understand that it is a good idea and makes one comfortable to have
tests for each separate commit but OTOH, in the longer term it will
just be adding more test time without achieving much benefit. I think
we can tell explicitly in the commit message of this patch that the
subsequent commit will cover the tests for this functionality

One minor comment on 0002:
+ so that logical replication can be resumed after failover.
+ </para>

Can we move this and similar comments or doc changes to the later 0004
patch where we are syncing the slots?

--
With Regards,
Amit Kapila.