On Fri, Mar 17, 2023 at 6:42 AM Peter Smith <smithpb2...@gmail.com> wrote: > > On Thu, Mar 16, 2023 at 1:55 PM Amit Kapila <amit.kapil...@gmail.com> wrote: > > > > On Wed, Mar 15, 2023 at 3:33 PM Melih Mutlu <m.melihmu...@gmail.com> wrote: > > > > > > Amit Kapila <amit.kapil...@gmail.com>, 15 Mar 2023 Çar, 12:31 tarihinde > > > şunu yazdı: > > >> > > >> On Tue, Mar 14, 2023 at 4:32 PM Melih Mutlu <m.melihmu...@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 binary to 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.