Re: pg_waldump: add test for coverage

From: Peter Eisentraut <peter(at)eisentraut(dot)org>
To: Dong Wook Lee <sh95119(at)gmail(dot)com>, pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org
Subject: Re: pg_waldump: add test for coverage
Date: 2023-06-14 07:16:50
Views: Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email
Lists: pgsql-hackers

On 06.09.22 07:57, Peter Eisentraut wrote:
>> I wrote a test for coverage.
>> Unfortunately, it seems to take quite a while to run the test.
>> I want to improve these execution times, but I don't know exactly what
>> to do.
>> Therefore, I want to hear feedback from many people.

> I think having some more test coverage for pg_waldump would be good, so
> I encourage you to continue working on this.

I made an updated patch that incorporates many of your ideas and code,
just made it a bit more compact, and added more tests for various
command-line options. This moves the test coverage of pg_waldump from
"bloodbath" to "mixed fruit salad", which I think is pretty good
progress. And now there is room for additional patches if someone wants
to figure out, e.g., how to get more complete coverage in gindesc.c or

Attachment Content-Type Size
v2-0001-Add-more-pg_waldump-tests.patch text/plain 8.2 KB

In response to


Browse pgsql-hackers by date

  From Date Subject
Next Message Peter Eisentraut 2023-06-14 07:37:45 Re: pgindent vs. pgperltidy command-line arguments
Previous Message Andreas Karlsson 2023-06-14 07:06:05 Re: Let's make PostgreSQL multi-threaded