Re: Covering the comparison between date and timestamp, tz, type - Mailing list pgsql-hackers

From Rustam ALLAKOV
Subject Re: Covering the comparison between date and timestamp, tz, type
Date
Msg-id 174806118695.992.5221102166468023359.pgcf@coridan.postgresql.org
Whole thread Raw
In response to Covering the comparison between date and timestamp, tz, type  (Kwangwon Seo <anchovyseo@gmail.com>)
List pgsql-hackers
The following review has been posted through the commitfest application:
make installcheck-world:  tested, passed
Implements feature:       tested, passed
Spec compliant:           tested, passed
Documentation:            tested, passed

Hi Kwangwon,
I have reviewed your patch. 

Funtions you mention are located at src/backend/utils/adt/date.c
I tested and generated coverage report at fb844b9f06568 
lines hit: 888    total: 1209    Coverage: 73.4 %

applied your patch, tested and generated report again
lines hit: 960    total: 1209    Coverage: 79.4 %

all the functions listed are now covered

date_eq_timestamp // covered
date_ne_timestamp // covered 
date_lt_timestamp // covered
date_gt_timestamp // already covered
date_le_timestamp // covered
date_ge_timestamp // covered

date_eq_timestamptz // covered
date_ne_timestamptz // covered
date_lt_timestamptz // already covered
date_gt_timestamptz // already covered
date_le_timestamptz // covered
date_ge_timestamptz // covered

timestamp_eq_date // covered
timestamp_ne_date // covered
timestamp_lt_date // covered
timestamp_gt_date // already covered
timestamp_le_date // covered
timestamp_ge_date // covered

timestamptz_eq_date // covered
timestamptz_ne_date // covered
timestamptz_lt_date // covered
timestamptz_gt_date // already covered
timestamptz_le_date // covered
timestamptz_ge_date // already covered

Thank you for the patch, your patch looks good to me! 
Regards
Rustam

The new status of this patch is: Ready for Committer

pgsql-hackers by date:

Previous
From: Tom Lane
Date:
Subject: Re: Non-reproducible AIO failure
Next
From: Dilip Kumar
Date:
Subject: Re: Conflict detection for update_deleted in logical replication