Re: additional foreign key test coverage - Mailing list pgsql-hackers

From Peter Eisentraut
Subject Re: additional foreign key test coverage
Date
Msg-id 89ea748a-a9d7-9c42-276c-a007280ac059@2ndquadrant.com
Whole thread Raw
In response to Re: additional foreign key test coverage  (Alvaro Herrera <alvherre@2ndquadrant.com>)
Responses Re: additional foreign key test coverage  (Alvaro Herrera <alvherre@2ndquadrant.com>)
List pgsql-hackers
On 04/12/2018 14:23, Alvaro Herrera wrote:
> On 2018-Dec-04, Peter Eisentraut wrote:
> 
>> During the development of my recent patch "unused/redundant foreign key
>> code" [0], I had developed a few additional test cases to increase the
>> coverage in ri_triggers.c.  They are in the attached patches with
>> explanations.  With these, coverage should be pretty complete, except
>> hard-to-trigger error cases.  Interested reviewers can also follow along
>> on coverage.postgresql.org.
> 
> Hmm.  One of the things I did for FKs on partitioned tables was remove
> all the cases involving only unpartitioned tables, then run just the
> foreign_key test and see what the coverage looked like -- in the first
> versions, there were large swaths of uncovered code.  That guided me to
> add a few more tests to increase coverage in later versions.  This is
> all to say that I think it would be useful to include the case of
> partitioned tables in the tests you add, where relevant.

I'm not sure I understand where partitioned tables come in here.  In
ri_triggers.c, it's all dealing with single base tables.  Certainly
other code elsewhere needs to know about partitions.

-- 
Peter Eisentraut              http://www.2ndQuadrant.com/
PostgreSQL Development, 24x7 Support, Remote DBA, Training & Services


pgsql-hackers by date:

Previous
From: Peter Eisentraut
Date:
Subject: Re: [HACKERS] REINDEX CONCURRENTLY 2.0
Next
From: Peter Eisentraut
Date:
Subject: Re: make install getting slower