| From: | Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us> |
|---|---|
| To: | Amit Langote <amitlangote09(at)gmail(dot)com> |
| Cc: | Petr Jelinek <petr(at)2ndquadrant(dot)com>, Peter Eisentraut <peter(dot)eisentraut(at)2ndquadrant(dot)com>, Rafia Sabih <rafia(dot)pghackers(at)gmail(dot)com>, PostgreSQL-development <pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org> |
| Subject: | Re: adding partitioned tables to publications |
| Date: | 2020-04-04 15:22:32 |
| Message-ID: | 13137.1586013752@sss.pgh.pa.us |
| Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
| Thread: | |
| Lists: | pgsql-hackers |
Amit Langote <amitlangote09(at)gmail(dot)com> writes:
> One thing to I must clarify: coverage for most of pgoutput.c looks
> okay on each run. I am concerned that the coverage for the code added
> by the patch is shown to be close to zero, which is a mystery to me,
> because I can confirm by other means such as debugging elogs() to next
> to the new code that the newly added tests do cover them.
According to
https://coverage.postgresql.org/src/backend/replication/pgoutput/index.html
the coverage is pretty good. Maybe you're doing something wrong
in enabling coverage testing locally?
regards, tom lane
| From | Date | Subject | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Next Message | Tom Lane | 2020-04-04 16:39:05 | Re: Created feature for to_date() conversion using patterns 'YYYY-WW', 'YYYY-WW-D', 'YYYY-MM-W' and 'YYYY-MM-W-D' |
| Previous Message | Tom Lane | 2020-04-04 14:57:32 | Re: backup manifests and contemporaneous buildfarm failures |