Re: [BUGS] [postgresql 10 beta3] unrecognized node type: 90 - Mailing list pgsql-bugs

From Andres Freund
Subject Re: [BUGS] [postgresql 10 beta3] unrecognized node type: 90
Date
Msg-id 20170811202629.3eebdnnv7osn5hqw@alap3.anarazel.de
Whole thread Raw
In response to Re: [BUGS] [postgresql 10 beta3] unrecognized node type: 90  (Tom Lane <tgl@sss.pgh.pa.us>)
Responses Re: [BUGS] [postgresql 10 beta3] unrecognized node type: 90
List pgsql-bugs
On 2017-08-11 16:20:51 -0400, Tom Lane wrote:
> I wrote:
> > So, apparently somebody wrote ExecReScanGatherMerge, but never bothered
> > to plug it into ExecReScan.  From which we may draw depressing conclusions
> > about how much it's been tested.
> 
> While I'm bitching ... the code coverage report at
> 
> https://coverage.postgresql.org/src/backend/executor/nodeGatherMerge.c.gcov.html
> 
> also leaves one with less than a warm feeling about the extent of test
> coverage on this file.  heap_compare_slots isn't invoked even once?

I complained about this before at
http://archives.postgresql.org/message-id/20170401022605.4wag26gtyzhny7ue%40alap3.anarazel.de
but I just noticed that Rushabh appears to have sent a patch adding
coverage. Missed that somehow, will apply.

- Andres


-- 
Sent via pgsql-bugs mailing list (pgsql-bugs@postgresql.org)
To make changes to your subscription:
http://www.postgresql.org/mailpref/pgsql-bugs

pgsql-bugs by date:

Previous
From: Tom Lane
Date:
Subject: Re: [BUGS] [postgresql 10 beta3] unrecognized node type: 90
Next
From: Amit Kapila
Date:
Subject: Re: [BUGS] signal 11 segfaults with parallel workers