Re: Increasing test coverage of WAL redo functions - Mailing list pgsql-hackers

From Tom Lane
Subject Re: Increasing test coverage of WAL redo functions
Date
Msg-id 29477.1416417588@sss.pgh.pa.us
Whole thread Raw
In response to Re: Increasing test coverage of WAL redo functions  (Alvaro Herrera <alvherre@2ndquadrant.com>)
List pgsql-hackers
Alvaro Herrera <alvherre@2ndquadrant.com> writes:
> Heikki Linnakangas wrote:
>> 2. These make the regression database larger. The following tables and
>> indexes are added:

> I think it's good to have these tests, though Tom was complaining
> earlier about the size of the regression test database.  Would it work
> to have this in a separate test suite, like the numeric_big stuff?

I was going to suggest the same.

> BTW looking at the lcov reports the other day I noticed that the lines
> PG_FUNCTION_INFO_V1 do not get marked as "ran", which decreases the
> coverage percentages ... in one of the BRIN files this was quite
> noticeable, bringing the function coverage count down to about 50-60%
> when it should have been 100%.

Kind of off topic for this thread, but why are those there at all?
They are unnecessary for internal C functions.
        regards, tom lane



pgsql-hackers by date:

Previous
From: Tom Lane
Date:
Subject: Re: Move Deprecated configure.in to configure.ac
Next
From: Andres Freund
Date:
Subject: Re: What exactly is our CRC algorithm?