RE: Introduce wait_for_subscription_sync for TAP tests

On Thu, Aug 4, 2022 5:49 PM shiy(dot)fnst(at)fujitsu(dot)com <shiy(dot)fnst(at)fujitsu(dot)com> wrote:
>
> On Thu, Aug 4, 2022 2:28 PM Masahiko Sawada <sawada(dot)mshk(at)gmail(dot)com>
> wrote:
> >
> > On Thu, Aug 4, 2022 at 10:37 AM Amit Kapila <amit(dot)kapila16(at)gmail(dot)com>
> > wrote:
> > >
> > > On Wed, Aug 3, 2022 at 10:21 AM Amit Kapila
> <amit(dot)kapila16(at)gmail(dot)com>
> > wrote:
> > > >
> > > > Pushed this one and now I'll look at your other patch.
> > > >
> > >
> > > I have pushed the second patch as well after making minor changes in
> > > the comments. Alvaro [1] and Tom [2] suggest to back-patch this and
> > > they sound reasonable to me. Will you be able to produce back branch
> > > patches?
> >
> > Yes. I've attached patches for backbranches. The updates are
> > straightforward on v11 - v15. However, on v10, we don't use
> > wait_for_catchup() in some logical replication test cases. The commit
> > bbd3363e128dae refactored the tests to use wait_for_catchup but it's
> > not backpatched. So in the patch for v10, I didn't change the code
> > that was changed by the commit. Also, since wait_for_catchup requires
> > to specify $target_lsn, unlike the one in v11 or later, I changed
> > wait_for_subscription_sync() accordingly.
> >
>
> Thanks for your patches.
>
> In the patches for pg11 ~ pg14, it looks we need to add a "=pod" before the
> current change in PostgresNode.pm. Right?
>

By the way, I notice that in 002_types.pl (on master branch), it seems the "as
well" in the following comment should be removed. Is it worth being fixed?

$node_subscriber->safe_psql('postgres',
"CREATE SUBSCRIPTION tap_sub CONNECTION '$publisher_connstr' PUBLICATION tap_pub WITH (slot_name = tap_sub_slot)"
);

# Wait for initial sync to finish as well
$node_subscriber->wait_for_subscription_sync($node_publisher, 'tap_sub');

Regards,
Shi yu