Re: Single transaction in the tablesync worker?

On Mon, Feb 8, 2021 at 8:06 AM Peter Smith <smithpb2250(at)gmail(dot)com> wrote:
>
> On Sat, Feb 6, 2021 at 6:30 PM osumi(dot)takamichi(at)fujitsu(dot)com
> <osumi(dot)takamichi(at)fujitsu(dot)com> wrote:
> >
> > > I have another idea for a test case: What if we write a test such that it fails PK
> > > violation on copy and then drop the subscription. Then check there shouldn't
> > > be any dangling slot on the publisher? This is similar to a test in
> > > subscription/t/004_sync.pl, we can use some of that framework but have a
> > > separate test for this.
> > I've added this PK violation test to the attached tests.
> > The patch works with v28 and made no failure during regression tests.
> >
>
> I checked this patch. It applied cleanly on top of V28, and all tests passed OK.
>
> Here are two feedback comments.
>
> 1. For the regression test there is 2 x SQL and 1 x function test. I
> thought to cover all the combinations there should be another function
> test. e.g.
> Tests ALTER … REFRESH
> Tests ALTER …. (refresh = true)
> Tests ALTER … (refresh = true) in a function
> Tests ALTER … REFRESH in a function <== this combination is not being
> testing ??
>

I am not sure whether there is much value in adding more to this set
of negative test cases unless it really covers a different code path
which I think won't happen if we add more tests here.

--
With Regards,
Amit Kapila.