"Kevin Grittner" <Kevin.Grittner@wicourts.gov> wrote:
> Alvaro Herrera <alvherre@commandprompt.com> wrote:
>
>> BTW did you try "make coverage" and friends? See
>> http://www.postgresql.org/docs/9.0/static/regress-coverage.html
>> and
>> http://developer.postgresql.org/~petere/coverage/
>
> I had missed that; thanks for pointing it out!
>
> I'm doing a coverage build now, to see what coverage we get from
> `make check` (probably not much) and `make dcheck`.
Well, that was a bit better than I expected. While the overall code
coverage for PostgreSQL source code is:
Overall coverage rate: lines......: 64.8% (130296 of 201140 lines) functions..: 72.0% (7997 of 11109 functions)
The coverage for predicate.c, after running both check and dcheck,
was (formatted to match above): lines......: 69.8% (925 of 1325 lines) functions..: 85.7% (48 of 56 functions)
Most of what was missed was in the SLRU or 2PC code, which is
expected. I'll bet that the DBT-2 runs, between the "normal"
and TEST_OLDSERXID flavors, would get us about 2/3 of the way from
those numbers toward 100%, with almost all the residual being in
2PC.
Does anyone have suggestions for automated 2PC tests?
-Kevin
