Re: Partition-wise join for join between (declaratively) partitioned tables

On Sat, Sep 16, 2017 at 9:38 AM, Thomas Munro
<thomas(dot)munro(at)enterprisedb(dot)com> wrote:
> On Sat, Sep 16, 2017 at 9:23 AM, Robert Haas <robertmhaas(at)gmail(dot)com> wrote:
>> On the overall patch set:
>>
>> - I am curious to know how this has been tested. How much of the new
>> code is covered by the tests in 0007-Partition-wise-join-tests.patch?
>> How much does coverage improve with
>> 0008-Extra-testcases-for-partition-wise-join-NOT-FOR-COMM.patch? What
>> code, if any, is not covered by either of those test suites? Could we
>> do meaningful testing of this with something like Andreas
>> Seltenreich's sqlsmith?
>
> FWIW I'm working on an answer to both of those question, but keep
> getting distracted by other things catching on fire...

I cobbled together some scripts to figure out the test coverage of
lines actually modified by this patch set. Please see attached.

I'm not sure if there is an established or better way to do this, but
I used git-blame to figure out which lines of gcov output can be
blamed on Ashutosh and prepended that to the lines of gcov's output.
That allowed me to find new/changed code not covered by "make check".
I found 94 untested new lines with 0007 applied and 88 untested new
lines with 0008 applied. The 6 lines that 0008 reaches and 0007
doesn't are:

======== src/backend/optimizer/path/allpaths.c ========
-[TOUCHED BY PATCH SET] #####: 3303: mark_dummy_rel(rel);
-[TOUCHED BY PATCH SET] #####: 3304: return;
-[TOUCHED BY PATCH SET] #####: 1515: continue;
-[TOUCHED BY PATCH SET] #####: 1526: continue;
======== src/backend/optimizer/util/pathnode.c ========
-[TOUCHED BY PATCH SET] #####: 3433: break;
-[TOUCHED BY PATCH SET] #####: 3435: return NULL;

--
Thomas Munro
http://www.enterprisedb.com