Coverage report

From: Alvaro Herrera <alvherre(at)alvh(dot)no-ip(dot)org>
To: Pg Hackers <pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org>
Subject: Coverage report
Date: 2016-04-18 21:16:16
Message-ID: 20160418211616.GA646321@alvherre.pgsql
Views: Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email
Thread:
Lists: pgsql-hackers

Hi,

Pursuant to promises made in Brussels a couple of months ago, I set up a
machine to run and expose the "make coverage" report under "make
check-world". Some people have already heard about this.

I would like to collect ideas on how to improve this. For example

* Should we run something other than "make check-world" As far as I
know, that covers all or almost all the tests we have; are there things
that we should have and are not running? If so, how do we go about
enabling them?

* buildfarm doesn't run make check-world for reasons of its own. Maybe
we should run exactly what a typical buildfarm animal runs? That way,
the coverage report would be closer to what we're actually verifying.

* Should we keep historical reports to study how numbers change in time?
Maybe save one report a week or something like that?

* Any other comments?

--
Álvaro Herrera http://www.linkedin.com/in/alvherre

Responses

Browse pgsql-hackers by date

  From Date Subject
Next Message Marc Cousin 2016-04-18 22:59:39 Re: Memory leak in GIN index build
Previous Message Josh berkus 2016-04-18 20:22:44 Re: Postgres 9.6 scariest patch tournament