Amit Kapila <amit.kapil...@gmail.com> writes:
> LGTM. I don't know if it is a good idea to omit the test case for this
> scenario. If required, we can reuse the test case from Sawada-San's
> patch in the email [1].
I don't think the cost of that test case is justified by the tiny
probability that it'd ever catch anything. If we were just adding a
query or two to an existing scenario, that could be okay; but spinning
up and syncing a whole new primary and standby database is *expensive*
when you multiply it by the number of times developers and buildfarm
animals are going to run the tests in the future.
There's also the little issue that I'm not sure it would actually
detect a problem if we had one. The case is going to fail, and
what we want to know is just how messily it fails, and I think the
TAP infrastructure isn't very sensitive to that ... especially
if the test isn't even checking for specific error messages.
regards, tom lane
