Re: gcov coverage data not full with immediate stop - Mailing list pgsql-hackers

From Tom Lane
Subject Re: gcov coverage data not full with immediate stop
Date
Msg-id 28859.1589172997@sss.pgh.pa.us
Whole thread Raw
In response to Re: gcov coverage data not full with immediate stop  (Alvaro Herrera <alvherre@2ndquadrant.com>)
Responses Re: gcov coverage data not full with immediate stop  (Robert Haas <robertmhaas@gmail.com>)
List pgsql-hackers
Alvaro Herrera <alvherre@2ndquadrant.com> writes:
> On 2020-May-10, Alexander Lakhin wrote:
>> 3. Explicitly call __gcov_flush in SIGQUIT handler (quickdie)?

> I tried your idea 3 a long time ago and my experiments didn't show an
> increase in coverage [1].  But I like this idea the best, and maybe I
> did something wrong.  Attached is the patch I had (on top of
> fc115d0f9fc6), but I don't know if it still applies.

Putting ill-defined, not-controlled-by-us work into a quickdie signal
handler sounds like a really bad idea to me.  Maybe it's all right,
since presumably it would only appear in specialized test builds; but
even so, how much could you trust the results?

> I think we should definitely get this fixed for pg13 ...

-1 for shoving in such a thing so late in the cycle.  We've survived
without it for years, we can do so for a few months more.

            regards, tom lane



pgsql-hackers by date:

Previous
From: Tom Lane
Date:
Subject: Re: Add "-Wimplicit-fallthrough" to default flags (was Re: pgsql: Support FETCH FIRST WITH TIES)
Next
From: Michael Paquier
Date:
Subject: Re: A comment fix