> On Jun 21, 2021, at 5:57 PM, Peter Smith <smithpb2...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> * Is the goal mainly to help automated (TAP) testing?
Absolutely, that was my original motivation. But I don't think that is the
primary reason the patch would be accepted. There is a cost to having the
logical replication workers attempt ad infinitum to apply a transaction that
will never apply.
Also, if you are waiting for a subscription to catch up, it is far from obvious
that you will wait forever.
> In that case,
> then maybe you do want to store the error message somewhere other than
> the log files. But still I wonder if results would be unpredictable
> anyway - e.g if there are multiple tables all with errors then it
> depends on the tablesync order of execution which error you see caused
> the auto-disable, right? And if it is not predictable maybe it is less
> useful.
But if you are writing a TAP test, you should be the one controlling whether
that is the case. I don't think it would be unpredictable from the point of
view of the test author.
—
Mark Dilger
EnterpriseDB: http://www.enterprisedb.com
The Enterprise PostgreSQL Company
