On Mon, Feb 8, 2021 at 8:06 AM Peter Smith <smithpb2...@gmail.com> wrote: > > On Sat, Feb 6, 2021 at 6:30 PM osumi.takami...@fujitsu.com > <osumi.takami...@fujitsu.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.
