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?
------
Kind Regards,
Peter Smith.
Fujitsu Australia
