On Sat, May 28, 2022, at 7:07 AM, Amit Kapila wrote:
I agree with your analysis and the fix looks correct to me.
Thanks for checking.
Instead of waiting for an error, we can try to insert into a new table
created by the test case after the 'Refresh ..' command and wait for
the change to be replicated by using wait_for_caught_up.
That's a good idea. [modifying the test...] I used the same table. Whenever the
new row arrives on the subscriber or it reads that error message, it bails out.
Let's try to see if we can simplify the test so that it can be
committed along with a fix. If we are not able to find any reasonable
way then we can think of skipping it.
The new test is attached.