On Mon, Jan 03, 2022 at 11:31:39AM -0300, Alvaro Herrera wrote:
> > Did the DatumGetBool issue expose a deficiency in testing ?
> > I think the !am_partition path was never being hit.
>
> Hmm, the TAP test creates a subscription that contains both types of
> tables. I tried adding an assert for each case, and they were both hit
> on running the test.
Yes, I know both paths are hit now that it uses GetBool.
What I'm wondering is why tests didn't fail when one path wasn't hit - when it
said am_partition=DatumGetChar(); if (!am_partition){}
I suppose it's because the am_partition=true case correctly handles
nonpartitions.
Maybe the !am_partition case should be removed, and add a comment that
pg_partition_tree(pg_partition_root(%u))) also handles non-partitions.
Or maybe that's inefficient...
--
Justin