Re: [PATCH] Cover get_json_table_plan() with tests

From: Michael Paquier <michael(at)paquier(dot)xyz>
To: Aleksander Alekseev <aleksander(at)tigerdata(dot)com>
Cc: PostgreSQL Hackers <pgsql-hackers(at)lists(dot)postgresql(dot)org>, "Jonathan Gonzalez V(dot)" <jonathan(dot)abdiel(at)gmail(dot)com>, solai v <solai(dot)cdac(at)gmail(dot)com>
Subject: Re: [PATCH] Cover get_json_table_plan() with tests
Date: 2026-07-22 01:59:01
Message-ID: amAj5cl1IgwgX1PG@paquier.xyz
Views: Whole Thread | Raw Message | Download mbox | Resend email
Thread:
Lists: pgsql-hackers

On Wed, Jul 22, 2026 at 01:49:34AM +0300, Aleksander Alekseev wrote:
>> I checked on the coverage that this patch effectively improves, but
>> reviewing the report I notice that there's still some gap that can be
>> fixed by just adding another nested path like this:
>>
>> NESTED PATH '$[*]' AS p1 COLUMNS (NESTED PATH '$[*]' AS p10 COLUMNS (a int))
>> NESTED PATH '$[*]' AS p2 COLUMNS (NESTED PATH '$[*]' AS p20 COLUMNS (b int))
>
> Could you please clarify which lines of get_json_table_plan() this
> will cover which are not currently covered by patch v2?

What are the old and new coverage numbers before and after the fact,
and where are the zones impacted? I am seeing a mention to
"improvements", but zero fact explaining things. This is mostly to
get a feeling of the gain vs the runtime involved.
--
Michael

In response to

Browse pgsql-hackers by date

  From Date Subject
Next Message Peter Smith 2026-07-22 02:08:29 Re: Add missing period to DETAIL messages
Previous Message Michael Paquier 2026-07-22 01:47:34 Re: Fix optind handling inconsistency in getopt_long() for missing argument