On Tue, May 31, 2022 at 6:27 AM Euler Taveira <euler@eulerto.com> wrote:
>
> 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.
>
I think we don't need the retry logical to check error, a simple
wait_for_caught_up should be sufficient as we are doing in other
tests. See attached. I have slightly modified the commit message as
well. Kindly let me know what you think?
--
With Regards,
Amit Kapila.