Re: Why is subscription/t/031_column_list.pl failing so much? - Mailing list pgsql-hackers

From Amit Kapila
Subject Re: Why is subscription/t/031_column_list.pl failing so much?
Date
Msg-id CAA4eK1KMg03iXE06JBpDHRZn6-WjLtH563+89EE00Ew5Snba0Q@mail.gmail.com
Whole thread Raw
In response to Re: Why is subscription/t/031_column_list.pl failing so much?  (Tom Lane <tgl@sss.pgh.pa.us>)
Responses Re: Why is subscription/t/031_column_list.pl failing so much?
List pgsql-hackers
On Tue, Feb 6, 2024 at 8:21 PM Tom Lane <tgl@sss.pgh.pa.us> wrote:
>
> Amit Kapila <amit.kapila16@gmail.com> writes:
> > Yeah, I was worried about that. The other idea I have previously
> > thought was to change Alter Subscription to Drop+Create Subscription.
> > That should also help in bringing stability without losing any
> > functionality.
>
> Hm, why would that fix it?
>

Because for new subscriptions, we will start reading WAL from the
latest WAL insert pointer on the publisher which will be after the
point where publication is created.

> More to the point, aren't these proposals just band-aids that
> would stabilize the test without fixing the actual problem?

Yes, but OTOH, this behavior has been since the beginning of logical
replication. This particular test has just exposed it, so keeping BF
failing for this particular test doesn't sound like the best way to
remember it.

--
With Regards,
Amit Kapila.



pgsql-hackers by date:

Previous
From: jian he
Date:
Subject: Re: cataloguing NOT NULL constraints
Next
From: Peter Eisentraut
Date:
Subject: Re: Built-in CTYPE provider