| From: | Alvaro Herrera <alvherre(at)alvh(dot)no-ip(dot)org> |
|---|---|
| To: | Julien Rouhaud <rjuju123(at)gmail(dot)com> |
| Cc: | Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us>, Andres Freund <andres(at)anarazel(dot)de>, Michael Paquier <michael(at)paquier(dot)xyz>, Peter Eisentraut <peter(dot)eisentraut(at)2ndquadrant(dot)com>, Jaime Casanova <jcasanov(at)systemguards(dot)com(dot)ec>, PostgreSQL Hackers <pgsql-hackers(at)lists(dot)postgresql(dot)org> |
| Subject: | Re: SQL-standard function body |
| Date: | 2021-04-08 17:08:02 |
| Message-ID: | 20210408170802.GA9392@alvherre.pgsql |
| Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
| Thread: | |
| Lists: | pgsql-hackers |
On 2021-Apr-08, Julien Rouhaud wrote:
> On Thu, Apr 08, 2021 at 02:58:02AM -0400, Tom Lane wrote:
> > No, because if that were the explanation then we'd be getting no
> > buildfarm coverage at all for for pg_stat_statements. Which aside
> > from being awful contradicts the results at coverage.postgresql.org.
>
> Is there any chance that coverage.postgresql.org isn't backed by the buildfarm
> client but a plain make check-world or something like that?
Yes, coverage.pg.org runs "make check-world".
Maybe it would make sense to change that script, so that it runs the
buildfarm's run_build.pl script instead of "make check-world". That
would make coverage.pg.org report what the buildfarm actually tests ...
it would have made this problem a bit more obvious.
--
Álvaro Herrera 39°49'30"S 73°17'W
| From | Date | Subject | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Next Message | James Coleman | 2021-04-08 17:11:13 | Re: Binary search in ScalarArrayOpExpr for OR'd constant arrays |
| Previous Message | Fabien COELHO | 2021-04-08 17:04:01 | Re: psql - add SHOW_ALL_RESULTS option |