| From: | Peter Geoghegan <pg(at)bowt(dot)ie> |
|---|---|
| To: | Andres Freund <andres(at)anarazel(dot)de> |
| Cc: | Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us>, Heikki Linnakangas <heikki(dot)linnakangas(at)iki(dot)fi>, Robert Haas <robertmhaas(at)gmail(dot)com>, PostgreSQL Hackers <pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org> |
| Subject: | Re: tuplesort test coverage |
| Date: | 2019-10-25 11:37:38 |
| Message-ID: | CAH2-Wz=TdYRc4LDi97J5RWXUoi83eNna=9LREgTW5k+XD6=PZA@mail.gmail.com |
| Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
| Thread: | |
| Lists: | pgsql-hackers |
On Thu, Oct 24, 2019 at 10:10 PM Andres Freund <andres(at)anarazel(dot)de> wrote:
> Here's a first stab at getting the coverage of tuplesort.c to a
> satisfying level. There's still bits uncovered, but that's largely
> either a) trace_sort related b) hopefully unreachable stuff c) explain
> related. The largest actually missing thing is a disk-based
> mark/restore, which probably ought be covered.
Yeah. It looks like function coverage of logtape.c will be 100% once
you have coverage of mark and restore.
> I think the the test time of this would still be OK, but if not we could
> also work a bit more on that angle.
That's hard for me to test right now, but offhand this general
approach looks good to me. I am pretty sure it's portable.
--
Peter Geoghegan
| From | Date | Subject | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Next Message | Kyotaro Horiguchi | 2019-10-25 13:20:32 | Re: [HACKERS] WAL logging problem in 9.4.3? |
| Previous Message | Peter Geoghegan | 2019-10-25 11:30:26 | Re: tuplesort test coverage |