Re: SSI patch version 14

From: "Kevin Grittner" <Kevin(dot)Grittner(at)wicourts(dot)gov>
To: "Alvaro Herrera" <alvherre(at)commandprompt(dot)com>, "Kevin Grittner" <Kevin(dot)Grittner(at)wicourts(dot)gov>
Cc: "Simon Riggs" <simon(at)2ndquadrant(dot)com>, "Markus Wanner" <markus(at)bluegap(dot)ch>, "Dan Ports" <drkp(at)csail(dot)mit(dot)edu>, "Pg Hackers" <pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org>
Subject: Re: SSI patch version 14
Date: 2011-01-26 20:10:23
Message-ID: 4D402B4F0200002500039D76@gw.wicourts.gov
Views: Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email
Thread:
Lists: pgsql-hackers

"Kevin Grittner" <Kevin(dot)Grittner(at)wicourts(dot)gov> wrote:
> Alvaro Herrera <alvherre(at)commandprompt(dot)com> wrote:
>
>> BTW did you try "make coverage" and friends? See
>> http://www.postgresql.org/docs/9.0/static/regress-coverage.html
>> and
>> http://developer.postgresql.org/~petere/coverage/
>
> I had missed that; thanks for pointing it out!
>
> I'm doing a coverage build now, to see what coverage we get from
> `make check` (probably not much) and `make dcheck`.

Well, that was a bit better than I expected. While the overall code
coverage for PostgreSQL source code is:

Overall coverage rate:
lines......: 64.8% (130296 of 201140 lines)
functions..: 72.0% (7997 of 11109 functions)

The coverage for predicate.c, after running both check and dcheck,
was (formatted to match above):

lines......: 69.8% (925 of 1325 lines)
functions..: 85.7% (48 of 56 functions)

Most of what was missed was in the SLRU or 2PC code, which is
expected. I'll bet that the DBT-2 runs, between the "normal"
and TEST_OLDSERXID flavors, would get us about 2/3 of the way from
those numbers toward 100%, with almost all the residual being in
2PC.

Does anyone have suggestions for automated 2PC tests?

-Kevin

In response to

Browse pgsql-hackers by date

  From Date Subject
Next Message Robert Haas 2011-01-26 20:16:07 Re: [COMMITTERS] pgsql: Remove arbitrary ALTER TABLE .. ADD COLUMN restriction.
Previous Message Tom Lane 2011-01-26 20:08:51 Re: ALTER TYPE 3: add facility to identify further no-work cases