On Sat, Apr 14, 2018 at 6:18 PM, Tom Lane <tgl@sss.pgh.pa.us> wrote:
> Traditionally, we've left around instances of various sorts of objects
> so that pg_dump/pg_upgrade would be exercised on those objects. It's
> possible that sqlsmith has different needs in this area, but hard to
> say without more thought.
Clearly it would be a shame if there were serious gaps in our test
coverage because nobody did some simple analysis.
>> For example, the new index_including.sql file drops all
>> INCLUDE indexes/tables proactively, even though it looks like they're
>> rather small, and in a certain sense worth keeping around.
>
> I agree that that's a completely bad idea, especially if nothing's
> been done to ensure pg_dump test coverage for the feature otherwise.
I took a look through all of the SQL files that the INCLUDE covering
indexes patch added tests to. At no point do they leave behind any
INCLUDE indexes. I'll do something about that as part of the INCLUDE
patch that I'm working on at the moment.
--
Peter Geoghegan
