On Wed, May 11, 2022 at 6:25 PM Masahiko Sawada <sawada.m...@gmail.com> wrote: > > On Wed, May 11, 2022 at 6:15 PM Amit Kapila <amit.kapil...@gmail.com> wrote: > > > > On Wed, May 11, 2022 at 1:09 PM Masahiko Sawada <sawada.m...@gmail.com> > > wrote: > > > > > > On Mon, May 9, 2022 at 6:05 PM Alvaro Herrera <alvhe...@alvh.no-ip.org> > > > wrote: > > > > > > > > > > > > The code in test_ddl_deparse is a pretty lame start, not nearly good > > > > enough by a thousand miles. My real intention was to have a test > > > > harness that would first run a special SQL script to install DDL > > > > capture, then run all the regular src/test/regress scripts, and then at > > > > the end ensure that all the DDL scripts were properly reproduced -- for > > > > example transmit them to another database, replay them there, and dump > > > > both databases and compare them. However, there were challenges which I > > > > no longer remember and we were unable to complete this, and we are where > > > > we are. > > > > > > I think the regression test suite improvements in these few years make > > > it easier to implement such regression tests in order to check not > > > only the existing commands but also future changes. I'll try it if no > > > one is working on it, and let us see if there are challenges. > > > > > > > I think it is a good idea to give it a try. However, one point to note > > in this regard is that if we decide to use deparsing for DDL logical > > replication then the tests for logical replication will automatically > > test all the deparsing code. > > Do you mean that in tests for logical replication we run regression > tests on the publisher and check if relations are > created/altered/dropped expectedly on the subscriber? >
Yes. > If we rely on > tests for logical replication, I think logical replication will have > to support all future DDL changes/features. > Agreed, so we can't completely rely on logical replication tests. -- With Regards, Amit Kapila.
