From: | Robert Haas <robertmhaas(at)gmail(dot)com> |
---|---|
To: | Amit Kapila <amit(dot)kapila16(at)gmail(dot)com> |
Cc: | Noah Misch <noah(at)leadboat(dot)com>, Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us>, Peter Eisentraut <peter(dot)eisentraut(at)2ndquadrant(dot)com>, Clément Prévost <prevostclement(at)gmail(dot)com>, PostgreSQL-development <pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org> |
Subject: | Re: parallel.c is not marked as test covered |
Date: | 2016-06-15 19:16:07 |
Message-ID: | CA+TgmoY-cWG1Ym1SLLhkfHTc9aaXAD9rjAn9BtQhx=gkrnf0mA@mail.gmail.com |
Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
Thread: | |
Lists: | pgsql-hackers |
On Wed, Jun 15, 2016 at 5:23 AM, Amit Kapila <amit(dot)kapila16(at)gmail(dot)com> wrote:
>> > Considering above analysis is correct, we have below options:
>> > a. Modify the test such that it actually generates an error and to hide
>> > the
>> > context, we can exception block and raise some generic error.
>> > b. Modify the test such that it actually generates an error and to hide
>> > the
>> > context, we can use force_parallel_mode = regress;
>>
>> Either of those sounds okay. No need to raise a generic error; one can
>> raise
>> SQLERRM to keep the main message and not the context. I lean toward (a)
>> so we
>> have nonzero test coverage of force_parallel_mode=on.
>
> Patch implementing option (a) attached with this mail.
OK, committed. I also changed "select" to "perform" per your
analysis. I wonder if we need to revisit the choices I made inside
PL/pgsql and see why CURSOR_OPT_PARALLEL_OK is not being set here.
--
Robert Haas
EnterpriseDB: http://www.enterprisedb.com
The Enterprise PostgreSQL Company
From | Date | Subject | |
---|---|---|---|
Next Message | Andres Freund | 2016-06-15 19:20:11 | Re: Re: [COMMITTERS] pgsql: Avoid extra locks in GetSnapshotData if old_snapshot_threshold < |
Previous Message | Kevin Grittner | 2016-06-15 19:05:31 | Re: [HACKERS] Re: pgsql: Avoid extra locks in GetSnapshotData if old_snapshot_threshold < |