| From: | Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us> |
|---|---|
| To: | Petr Jelinek <petr(at)2ndquadrant(dot)com> |
| Cc: | Amit Langote <amitlangote09(at)gmail(dot)com>, Peter Eisentraut <peter(dot)eisentraut(at)2ndquadrant(dot)com>, Rafia Sabih <rafia(dot)pghackers(at)gmail(dot)com>, PostgreSQL-development <pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org> |
| Subject: | Re: adding partitioned tables to publications |
| Date: | 2020-04-03 15:51:45 |
| Message-ID: | 9684.1585929105@sss.pgh.pa.us |
| Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
| Thread: | |
| Lists: | pgsql-hackers |
Petr Jelinek <petr(at)2ndquadrant(dot)com> writes:
> On 03/04/2020 16:59, Tom Lane wrote:
>> Petr Jelinek <petr(at)2ndquadrant(dot)com> writes:
>>> AFAIK gcov can't handle multiple instances of same process being started
>>> as it just overwrites the coverage files. So for TAP test it will report
>>> bogus info (as in some code that's executed will look as not executed).
>> Hm, really? I routinely run "make check" (ie, parallel regression
>> tests) under coverage, and I get results that seem sane. If I were
>> losing large chunks of the data, I think I'd have noticed.
> Parallel regression still just starts single postgres instance no?
But the forked-off children have to write the gcov files independently,
don't they?
regards, tom lane
| From | Date | Subject | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Next Message | Ibrar Ahmed | 2020-04-03 16:04:34 | Re: VACUUM memory management |
| Previous Message | Tom Lane | 2020-04-03 15:50:18 | Re: zombie connections |