Re: incorrect xlog.c coverage report

On Thu, Nov 22, 2018 at 10:56:39AM +0900, Masahiko Sawada wrote:
> On Thu, Nov 22, 2018 at 10:43 AM Thomas Munro <thomas(dot)munro(at)enterprisedb(dot)com> wrote:
>> Presumably you could add your own call to __gcov_flush() in
>> quickdie(), so that we get GCOV data but no other atexit()-like stuff.
>> I see that some people advocate doing that in signal handlers, but I
>> don't know if it's really safe. If that is somehow magically OK,
>> you'd probably also need the chdir() hack from proc_exit() to get
>> per-pid files.
>
> That's probably a good idea, I'm also not sure if it's really safe
> though. An alternative approach could be that we can do $node->restart
> after recovered from $node->teardown_node() to write gcda file surely,
> although it would make the tests hard to read.

Thanks for looking at the details around that. I'd prefer much if we
have a solution like what's outline here because we should really try to
have coverage even for code paths which involve an immediate shutdown
(mainly for recovery). Manipulating the tests to get a better coverage
feels more like a band-aid solution, and does not help folks with custom
TAP tests in their plugins.
--
Michael