Re: additional foreign key test coverage

From: Peter Eisentraut <peter(dot)eisentraut(at)2ndquadrant(dot)com>
To: Alvaro Herrera <alvherre(at)2ndquadrant(dot)com>
Cc: pgsql-hackers <pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org>
Subject: Re: additional foreign key test coverage
Date: 2018-12-07 15:52:58
Message-ID: 89ea748a-a9d7-9c42-276c-a007280ac059@2ndquadrant.com
Views: Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email
Thread:
Lists: pgsql-hackers

On 04/12/2018 14:23, Alvaro Herrera wrote:
> On 2018-Dec-04, Peter Eisentraut wrote:
>
>> During the development of my recent patch "unused/redundant foreign key
>> code" [0], I had developed a few additional test cases to increase the
>> coverage in ri_triggers.c. They are in the attached patches with
>> explanations. With these, coverage should be pretty complete, except
>> hard-to-trigger error cases. Interested reviewers can also follow along
>> on coverage.postgresql.org.
>
> Hmm. One of the things I did for FKs on partitioned tables was remove
> all the cases involving only unpartitioned tables, then run just the
> foreign_key test and see what the coverage looked like -- in the first
> versions, there were large swaths of uncovered code. That guided me to
> add a few more tests to increase coverage in later versions. This is
> all to say that I think it would be useful to include the case of
> partitioned tables in the tests you add, where relevant.

I'm not sure I understand where partitioned tables come in here. In
ri_triggers.c, it's all dealing with single base tables. Certainly
other code elsewhere needs to know about partitions.

--
Peter Eisentraut http://www.2ndQuadrant.com/
PostgreSQL Development, 24x7 Support, Remote DBA, Training & Services

In response to

Responses

Browse pgsql-hackers by date

  From Date Subject
Next Message Peter Eisentraut 2018-12-07 15:56:45 Re: make install getting slower
Previous Message Peter Eisentraut 2018-12-07 15:48:23 Re: [HACKERS] REINDEX CONCURRENTLY 2.0