A couple more comments for the v69-0001 TAP tests.
~~~
1. src/test/subscription/t/027_row_filter.pl
+# The subscription of the ALL TABLES IN SCHEMA publication means
there should be
+# no filtering on the tablesync COPY, so all expect all 5 will be present.
+$result = $node_subscriber->safe_psql('postgres', "SELECT count(x)
FROM schema_rf_x.tab_rf_x");
+is($result, qq(5), 'check initial data copy from table tab_rf_x
should not be filtered');
+
+# Similarly, normal filtering after the initial phase will also have
not effect.
+# Expected:
+# tab_rf_x : 5 initial rows + 2 new rows = 7 rows
+# tab_rf_partition : 1 initial row + 1 new row = 2 rows
+$node_publisher->safe_psql('postgres', "INSERT INTO
schema_rf_x.tab_rf_x (x) VALUES (-99), (99)");
+$node_publisher->safe_psql('postgres', "INSERT INTO
schema_rf_x.tab_rf_partitioned (x) VALUES (5), (25)");
+$node_publisher->wait_for_catchup($appname);
+$result = $node_subscriber->safe_psql('postgres', "SELECT count(x)
FROM schema_rf_x.tab_rf_x");
+is($result, qq(7), 'check table tab_rf_x should not be filtered');
+$result = $node_subscriber->safe_psql('postgres', "SELECT * FROM
public.tab_rf_partition");
+is($result, qq(20
+25), 'check table tab_rf_partition should be filtered');
That comment ("Similarly, normal filtering after the initial phase
will also have not effect.") seems no good:
- it is too vague for the tab_rf_x tablesync
- it seems completely wrong for the tab_rf_partition table (because
that filter is working fine)
I'm not sure exactly what the comment should say, but possibly
something like this (??):
BEFORE:
Similarly, normal filtering after the initial phase will also have not effect.
AFTER:
Similarly, the table filter for tab_rf_x (after the initial phase) has
no effect when combined with the ALL TABLES IN SCHEMA. Meanwhile, the
filter for the tab_rf_partition does work because that partition
belongs to a different schema (and publish_via_partition_root =
false).
~~~
2. src/test/subscription/t/027_row_filter.pl
Here is a 2nd place with the same broken comment:
+# The subscription of the FOR ALL TABLES publication means there should be no
+# filtering on the tablesync COPY, so all expect all 5 will be present.
+my $result = $node_subscriber->safe_psql('postgres', "SELECT count(x)
FROM tab_rf_x");
+is($result, qq(5), 'check initial data copy from table tab_rf_x
should not be filtered');
+
+# Similarly, normal filtering after the initial phase will also have
not effect.
+# Expected: 5 initial rows + 2 new rows = 7 rows
+$node_publisher->safe_psql('postgres', "INSERT INTO tab_rf_x (x)
VALUES (-99), (99)");
+$node_publisher->wait_for_catchup($appname);
+$result = $node_subscriber->safe_psql('postgres', "SELECT count(x)
FROM tab_rf_x");
+is($result, qq(7), 'check table tab_rf_x should not be filtered');
Here I also think the comment maybe should just say something like:
BEFORE:
Similarly, normal filtering after the initial phase will also have not effect.
AFTER:
Similarly, the table filter for tab_rf_x (after the initial phase) has
no effect when combined with the ALL TABLES IN SCHEMA.
------
Kind Regards,
Peter Smith.
Fujitsu Australia
