On Fri, Mar 17, 2023 at 6:42 AM Peter Smith <smithpb2250@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> On Thu, Mar 16, 2023 at 1:55 PM Amit Kapila <amit.kapila16@gmail.com> wrote:
> >
> > On Wed, Mar 15, 2023 at 3:33 PM Melih Mutlu <m.melihmutlu@gmail.com> wrote:
> > >
> > > Amit Kapila <amit.kapila16@gmail.com>, 15 Mar 2023 Çar, 12:31 tarihinde şunu yazdı:
> > >>
> > >> On Tue, Mar 14, 2023 at 4:32 PM Melih Mutlu <m.melihmutlu@gmail.com> wrote:
> > >
> > >
> > >>
> > >> What purpose does this test serve w.r.t this patch? Before checking
> > >> the sync for different column orders, the patch has already changed
> > >> binary to false, so it doesn't seem to test the functionality of this
> > >> patch. Am, I missing something?
> > >
> > >
> > > I missed that binary has changed to false before testing column orders. I moved that test case up before changing
binaryto false.
> > > Please see v14 [1].
> > >
> >
> > After thinking some more about this test, I don't think we need this
> > test as this doesn't add any value to this patch. This tests the
> > column orders which is well-established functionality of the apply
> > worker.
> >
>
> I agree that different column order is a "well-established
> functionality of the apply worker".
>
> But when I searched the TAP tests I could not find any existing tests
> that check the combination of
> - different column orders
> - CREATE SUBSCRIPTION with parameters binary=true and copy_data=true
>
> So there seemed to be a gap in the test coverage, which is why I suggested it.
>
> I guess that test was not strictly tied to this patch. Should I post
> this new test suggestion as a separate thread or do you think there is
> no point because it will not get any support?
>
Personally, I don't think we need to test every possible combination
unless it is really achieving something meaningful. In this particular
case, I don't see the need or maybe I am missing something.
--
With Regards,
Amit Kapila.
