Re: Question for coverage report - Mailing list pgsql-hackers

From Jacob Champion
Subject Re: Question for coverage report
Date
Msg-id CAOYmi+=cHeYc91Ura_yYWPoeJZOm_Q5Tj+v_1xD0wBdH2+GdBA@mail.gmail.com
Whole thread Raw
In response to RE: Question for coverage report  ("Hayato Kuroda (Fujitsu)" <kuroda.hayato@fujitsu.com>)
Responses Re: Question for coverage report
List pgsql-hackers
On Tue, Oct 21, 2025 at 11:11 PM Hayato Kuroda (Fujitsu)
<kuroda.hayato@fujitsu.com> wrote:
> Per above, I could consider in pguotput.c., line 1495 was actually executed but
> 1503 was counted when it reached line 1494. Another question is why one of the
> branch was reported as 100% and another one was 0%. Is it just because counts
> was less than 1/100?

(I don't know the answer to this question, but I will note that clang
(15.0.7) does not seem to make this mistake on my machine, and reports
a call count of zero for the `return` on line 1495. Looking at the
disassembly, it seems to add more instrumentation points than what Tom
showed for gcc.)

--Jacob



pgsql-hackers by date:

Previous
From: Xuneng Zhou
Date:
Subject: Re: Fix lag columns in pg_stat_replication not advancing when replay LSN stalls
Next
From: Álvaro Herrera
Date:
Subject: Re: LISTEN/NOTIFY bug: VACUUM sets frozenxid past a xid in async queue