On Wed, Aug 3, 2022 at 11:02 PM Tom Lane wrote:
>
> Amit Kapila writes:
> > Yeah, that can happen for bug fixes but may not be a big problem as it
> > just avoids duplicate code. If you and others want we can back this
> > now or otherwise, we can do it later if we really see the difficulty
> > l
Amit Kapila writes:
> Yeah, that can happen for bug fixes but may not be a big problem as it
> just avoids duplicate code. If you and others want we can back this
> now or otherwise, we can do it later if we really see the difficulty
> later.
IMO we've seldom regretted back-patching testing infra
On Wed, Aug 3, 2022 at 4:15 PM Alvaro Herrera wrote:
>
> On 2022-Aug-03, Amit Kapila wrote:
>
> > The new function wait_for_subscription_sync() can be used to replace the
> > above code. This eliminates duplicated code and makes it easier to write
> > future tests.
>
> Hmm, if you don't backpatch
On 2022-Aug-03, Amit Kapila wrote:
> The new function wait_for_subscription_sync() can be used to replace the
> above code. This eliminates duplicated code and makes it easier to write
> future tests.
Hmm, if you don't backpatch this, it might become a hurdle if we later
backpatch tests that use
