| From: | Andres Freund <andres(at)anarazel(dot)de> |
|---|---|
| To: | Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us>, Rushabh Lathia <rushabh(dot)lathia(at)gmail(dot)com> |
| Cc: | Robert Haas <robertmhaas(at)gmail(dot)com>, pgsql-bugs(at)postgresql(dot)org |
| Subject: | Re: [postgresql 10 beta3] unrecognized node type: 90 |
| Date: | 2017-08-11 20:26:29 |
| Message-ID: | 20170811202629.3eebdnnv7osn5hqw@alap3.anarazel.de |
| Views: | Whole Thread | Raw Message | Download mbox | Resend email |
| Thread: | |
| Lists: | pgsql-bugs pgsql-hackers |
On 2017-08-11 16:20:51 -0400, Tom Lane wrote:
> I wrote:
> > So, apparently somebody wrote ExecReScanGatherMerge, but never bothered
> > to plug it into ExecReScan. From which we may draw depressing conclusions
> > about how much it's been tested.
>
> While I'm bitching ... the code coverage report at
>
> https://coverage.postgresql.org/src/backend/executor/nodeGatherMerge.c.gcov.html
>
> also leaves one with less than a warm feeling about the extent of test
> coverage on this file. heap_compare_slots isn't invoked even once?
I complained about this before at
http://archives.postgresql.org/message-id/20170401022605.4wag26gtyzhny7ue%40alap3.anarazel.de
but I just noticed that Rushabh appears to have sent a patch adding
coverage. Missed that somehow, will apply.
- Andres
| From | Date | Subject | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Next Message | Amit Kapila | 2017-08-12 02:34:43 | Re: signal 11 segfaults with parallel workers |
| Previous Message | Tom Lane | 2017-08-11 20:20:51 | Re: [postgresql 10 beta3] unrecognized node type: 90 |
| From | Date | Subject | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Next Message | Andres Freund | 2017-08-12 00:03:19 | Re: WIP: Failover Slots |
| Previous Message | Tom Lane | 2017-08-11 20:20:51 | Re: [postgresql 10 beta3] unrecognized node type: 90 |