On Wed, Jan 31, 2024 at 7:48 PM Alvaro Herrera <alvhe...@alvh.no-ip.org> wrote: > > How about rewording it more extensively? It doesn't read great IMO. > I would use something like > > # In the upgraded instance, the running status and failover option of the > # subscription with the failover option should have been preserved; the other > # should not. > # So regress_sub1 should still have subenabled,subfailover set to true, > # while regress_sub2 should have both set to false. >
IIUC this suggested comment is implying that the running status is *only* preserved when the failover option is true. But AFAIK that is not correct. e.g. I hacked the test to keep subscription regress_sub2 as ENABLED but the result after the upgrade was subenabled/subfailover = t/f, not f/f. > I think the symmetry between the two lines confuses more than helps. > It's not a huge thing but since we're editing anyway, why not? > OK. Now using your suggested 2nd sentence: +# The subscription's running status and failover option should be preserved +# in the upgraded instance. So regress_sub1 should still have subenabled,subfailover +# set to true, while regress_sub2 should have both set to false. ~ I also tweaked some other nearby comments/messages which did not mention the 'failover' preservation. PSA v2. ====== Kind Regards, Peter Smith. Fujitsu Australia
v2-0001-Fix-pg_upgrade-test-comment.patch
Description: Binary data
