> -----Original Message-----
> From: Amit Kapila <amit.kapila16@gmail.com>
> Sent: Friday, June 24, 2022 10:28 AM
> To: Hou, Zhijie/侯 志杰 <houzj.fnst@fujitsu.com>
> Cc: PostgreSQL Hackers <pgsql-hackers@lists.postgresql.org>
> Subject: Re: Fix instability in subscription regression test
>
> On Thu, Jun 23, 2022 at 4:58 PM houzj.fnst@fujitsu.com
> <houzj.fnst@fujitsu.com> wrote:
> >
> > Hi,
> >
> > I noticed BF member wrasse failed in 028_row_filter.pl.
> >
> > # Failed test 'check publish_via_partition_root behavior'
> > # at t/028_row_filter.pl line 669.
> > # got: ''
> > # expected: '1|100
> > # ...
> >
> > Log:
> > 2022-06-23 11:27:42.387 CEST [20589:3] 028_row_filter.pl LOG:
> > statement: ALTER SUBSCRIPTION tap_sub REFRESH PUBLICATION WITH
> > (copy_data = true)
> > 2022-06-23 11:27:42.470 CEST [20589:4] 028_row_filter.pl LOG:
> > disconnection: session time: 0:00:00.098 user=nm database=postgres
> > host=[local]
> > 2022-06-23 11:27:42.611 CEST [20593:1] LOG: logical replication table
> > synchronization worker for subscription "tap_sub", table
> "tab_rowfilter_partitioned" has started ...
> > 2022-06-23 11:27:43.197 CEST [20610:3] 028_row_filter.pl LOG:
> > statement: SELECT a, b FROM tab_rowfilter_partitioned ORDER BY 1, 2 ...
> > 2022-06-23 11:27:43.689 CEST [20593:2] LOG: logical replication table
> > synchronization worker for subscription "tap_sub", table
> > "tab_rowfilter_partitioned" has finished
> >
> > From the Log, I can see it query the target table before the table
> > sync is over. So, I think the reason is that we didn't wait for table
> > sync to finish after refreshing the publication. Sorry for not
> > catching that ealier. Here is a patch to fix it.
> >
>
> +# wait for initial table synchronization to finish
> +$node_subscriber->poll_query_until('postgres', $synced_query)
>
> We could probably slightly change the comment to say: "wait for table sync to
> finish". Normally, we use initial table sync after CREATE SUBSCRIPTION. This is a
> minor nitpick and I can take care of it before committing unless you think
> otherwise.
Thanks for reviewing, the suggestion looks good to me.
Best regards,
Hou zj
