Re: Question for coverage report

From: Jacob Champion <jacob(dot)champion(at)enterprisedb(dot)com>
To: "Hayato Kuroda (Fujitsu)" <kuroda(dot)hayato(at)fujitsu(dot)com>
Cc: Steven Niu <niushiji(at)gmail(dot)com>, "pgsql-hackers(at)lists(dot)postgresql(dot)org" <pgsql-hackers(at)lists(dot)postgresql(dot)org>
Subject: Re: Question for coverage report
Date: 2025-10-17 16:39:24
Message-ID: CAOYmi+mX51OxmJ3NkMiNbqUu0C_Y6R6AyiiMGe5oEKcpzRwR2g@mail.gmail.com
Views: Whole Thread | Raw Message | Download mbox | Resend email
Thread:
Lists: pgsql-hackers

On Fri, Oct 17, 2025 at 3:55 AM Hayato Kuroda (Fujitsu)
<kuroda(dot)hayato(at)fujitsu(dot)com> wrote:
> Oh, I didn't notice. Yeah it was also strange. Is there a possibility that complier optimization
> did prefetch and it was also counted?

FWIW, I'm used to having to set -O0 for the best coverage behavior.
-Og _usually_ works fine, but it occasionally results in nonsensical
reports for me.

--Jacob

In response to

Responses

Browse pgsql-hackers by date

  From Date Subject
Next Message Tom Lane 2025-10-17 16:40:41 Re: Inconsistent Behavior of GROUP BY ROLLUP in v17 vs master
Previous Message Daniele Varrazzo 2025-10-17 16:26:57 Re: Getting the SQLSTATE after a failed connection