Thread: coverage.postgresql.org doesn't run injection_point tests

The purpose of injection_points is to get test coverage for areas that
would otherwise be almost impossible to ensure coverage of due to
concurrency or timing issues. It would be useful if
coverage.postgresql.org was made to build Postgres with support for
injection_points, so that the relevant TAP tests actually ran and were
counted by community coverage reports. That way we'd have a more
complete picture of the test coverage situation.

Thanks
-- 
Peter Geoghegan

Hi Peter

On 2024-Nov-10, Peter Geoghegan wrote:

> The purpose of injection_points is to get test coverage for areas that
> would otherwise be almost impossible to ensure coverage of due to
> concurrency or timing issues. It would be useful if
> coverage.postgresql.org was made to build Postgres with support for
> injection_points, so that the relevant TAP tests actually ran and were
> counted by community coverage reports. That way we'd have a more
> complete picture of the test coverage situation.

Thanks for pointing it out.  I have enabled the configure option, and
looking at the report for transam/multixact.c, they are being exercised.

-- 
Álvaro Herrera        Breisgau, Deutschland  —  https://www.EnterpriseDB.com/
"At least to kernel hackers, who really are human, despite occasional
rumors to the contrary" (LWN.net)

On Mon, Nov 11, 2024 at 4:53 AM Alvaro Herrera <alvherre@alvh.no-ip.org> wrote:
> Thanks for pointing it out.  I have enabled the configure option, and
> looking at the report for transam/multixact.c, they are being exercised.

Thanks Álvaro!

--
Peter Geoghegan