Re: parallel.c is not marked as test covered - Mailing list pgsql-hackers

From Robert Haas
Subject Re: parallel.c is not marked as test covered
Date
Msg-id CA+TgmoY-cWG1Ym1SLLhkfHTc9aaXAD9rjAn9BtQhx=gkrnf0mA@mail.gmail.com
Whole thread Raw
In response to Re: parallel.c is not marked as test covered  (Amit Kapila <amit.kapila16@gmail.com>)
Responses Re: parallel.c is not marked as test covered
List pgsql-hackers
On Wed, Jun 15, 2016 at 5:23 AM, Amit Kapila <amit.kapila16@gmail.com> wrote:
>> > Considering above analysis is correct, we have below options:
>> > a. Modify the test such that it actually generates an error and to hide
>> > the
>> > context, we can exception block and raise some generic error.
>> > b. Modify the test such that it actually generates an error and to hide
>> > the
>> > context, we can use force_parallel_mode = regress;
>>
>> Either of those sounds okay.  No need to raise a generic error; one can
>> raise
>> SQLERRM to keep the main message and not the context.  I lean toward (a)
>> so we
>> have nonzero test coverage of force_parallel_mode=on.
>
> Patch implementing option (a) attached with this mail.

OK, committed.  I also changed "select" to "perform" per your
analysis.  I wonder if we need to revisit the choices I made inside
PL/pgsql and see why CURSOR_OPT_PARALLEL_OK is not being set here.

-- 
Robert Haas
EnterpriseDB: http://www.enterprisedb.com
The Enterprise PostgreSQL Company



pgsql-hackers by date:

Previous
From: Kevin Grittner
Date:
Subject: Re: Re: [COMMITTERS] pgsql: Avoid extra locks in GetSnapshotData if old_snapshot_threshold <
Next
From: Andres Freund
Date:
Subject: Re: Re: [COMMITTERS] pgsql: Avoid extra locks in GetSnapshotData if old_snapshot_threshold <