| From: | Alvaro Herrera <alvherre(at)commandprompt(dot)com> |
|---|---|
| To: | Gregory Stark <stark(at)enterprisedb(dot)com> |
| Cc: | Peter Eisentraut <peter_e(at)gmx(dot)net>, Michelle Caisse <Michelle(dot)Caisse(at)Sun(dot)COM>, PG Hackers <pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org> |
| Subject: | Re: code coverage patch |
| Date: | 2008-09-05 14:39:18 |
| Message-ID: | 20080905143918.GB4353@alvh.no-ip.org |
| Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
| Thread: | |
| Lists: | pgsql-hackers |
Gregory Stark wrote:
> Peter Eisentraut <peter_e(at)gmx(dot)net> writes:
>
> > I have uploaded an example run here:
> > http://developer.postgresql.org/~petere/coverage/
> >
> > Current test coverage is about 66% overall.
>
> With some pretty glaring gaps: 0% coverage of geqo, 0% coverage of logtape
> which implies no tuplesorts are spilling to disk, no coverage of mark/restore
> on index scans...
Yah, that kinda shocked me too. Clearly we should spend some effort to
expand the regression tests a bit.
--
Alvaro Herrera http://www.CommandPrompt.com/
The PostgreSQL Company - Command Prompt, Inc.
| From | Date | Subject | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Next Message | Kevin Grittner | 2008-09-05 14:41:56 | 8.4devel out of memory |
| Previous Message | Markus Wanner | 2008-09-05 14:38:13 | Re: Need more reviewers! |