Excerpts from Kevin Grittner's message of mié ene 26 14:07:18 -0300 2011:
> Simon Riggs <simon(at)2ndQuadrant(dot)com> wrote:
> > Pounding for hours on 16 CPU box sounds good. What diagnostics or
> > instrumentation are included with the patch? How will we know
> > whether pounding for hours is actually touching all relevant parts
> > of code? I've done such things myself only to later realise I
> > wasn't actually testing the right piece of code.
> We've looked at distributions of failed transactions by ereport
> statement. This confirms that we are indeed exercising the vast
> majority of the code. See separate post for how we pushed execution
> into the summarization path to test code related to that.
BTW did you try "make coverage" and friends? See
Álvaro Herrera <alvherre(at)commandprompt(dot)com>
The PostgreSQL Company - Command Prompt, Inc.
PostgreSQL Replication, Consulting, Custom Development, 24x7 support
In response to
pgsql-hackers by date
|Next:||From: Tom Lane||Date: 2011-01-26 19:35:26|
|Subject: Re: Extensions support for pg_dump, patch v27 |
|Previous:||From: Robert Haas||Date: 2011-01-26 19:18:09|
|Subject: Re: ALTER TYPE 3: add facility to identify further no-work cases|