RE: Single transaction in the tablesync worker?

Hello

On Mon, Feb 8, 2021 12:40 PM Amit Kapila <amit(dot)kapila16(at)gmail(dot)com> wrote:
> 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.
Yeah, I agree. Accordingly, I didn't fix that part.

On Mon, Feb 8, 2021 11:36 AM Peter Smith <smithpb2250(at)gmail(dot)com> wrote:
> 2. For the 004 test case I know the test is needing some PK constraint
> violation # Check if DROP SUBSCRIPTION cleans up slots on the publisher
> side # when the subscriber is stuck on data copy for constraint
>
> But it is not clear to me what was the exact cause of that PK violation. I think
> you must be relying on data that is leftover from some previous test case but
> I am not sure which one. Can you make the comment more detailed to say
> *how* the PK violation is happening - e.g something to say which rows, in
> which table, and inserted by who?
I added some comments to clarify how the PK violation happens.
Please have a look.

Best Regards,
Takamichi Osumi