Re: [PATCH] Cover get_json_table_plan() with tests

From: "Jonathan Gonzalez V(dot)" <jonathan(dot)abdiel(at)gmail(dot)com>
To: Michael Paquier <michael(at)paquier(dot)xyz>
Cc: Aleksander Alekseev <aleksander(at)tigerdata(dot)com>, PostgreSQL Hackers <pgsql-hackers(at)lists(dot)postgresql(dot)org>, solai v <solai(dot)cdac(at)gmail(dot)com>
Subject: Re: [PATCH] Cover get_json_table_plan() with tests
Date: 2026-07-22 08:00:08
Message-ID: 871pcv4fp3.fsf@gmail.com
Views: Whole Thread | Raw Message | Download mbox | Resend email
Thread:
Lists: pgsql-hackers


Hello!

>> Could you please clarify which lines of get_json_table_plan() this
>> will cover which are not currently covered by patch v2?
>
> What are the old and new coverage numbers before and after the fact,
> and where are the zones impacted? I am seeing a mention to
> "improvements", but zero fact explaining things. This is mostly to
> get a feeling of the gain vs the runtime involved.

Yes, I'm sorry I forgot to include the numbers and the facts, my bad!

So the v2 to is missing the following lines

12779: castNode(JsonTablePathScan, j->lplan)->child);
12785: castNode(JsonTablePathScan, j->rplan)->child);

Which will be covered by my suggestion, these are marked as not tested
in a 2 branch in the coverage.

The current coverage for the function get_json_table_plan() without the
v2 is:

get_json_table_plan (line 12752) called 3 times, returned 3 times 54.0%

With the v2:

get_json_table_plan (line 12752) called 11 times, returned 11 times 95.0%

Applying my suggestion

get_json_table_plan (line 12752) called 38 times, returned 38 times 100.0%

Those are the full numbers for that function.

Regards!
--
Jonathan Gonzalez V.
EDB
https://www.enterprisedb.com

In response to

Responses

Browse pgsql-hackers by date

  From Date Subject
Next Message Anthonin Bonnefoy 2026-07-22 08:16:53 Don't use pq_putmessage in socket comm function
Previous Message Tender Wang 2026-07-22 07:44:51 Re: remove_useless_joins vs. bug #19560