| From: | Petr Jelinek <petr(at)2ndquadrant(dot)com> |
|---|---|
| To: | Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us> |
| Cc: | Amit Langote <amitlangote09(at)gmail(dot)com>, Peter Eisentraut <peter(dot)eisentraut(at)2ndquadrant(dot)com>, Rafia Sabih <rafia(dot)pghackers(at)gmail(dot)com>, PostgreSQL-development <pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org> |
| Subject: | Re: adding partitioned tables to publications |
| Date: | 2020-04-03 15:04:23 |
| Message-ID: | e934a27d-bab4-b818-8936-bbcd2d41df0a@2ndquadrant.com |
| Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
| Thread: | |
| Lists: | pgsql-hackers |
On 03/04/2020 16:59, Tom Lane wrote:
> Petr Jelinek <petr(at)2ndquadrant(dot)com> writes:
>> AFAIK gcov can't handle multiple instances of same process being started
>> as it just overwrites the coverage files. So for TAP test it will report
>> bogus info (as in some code that's executed will look as not executed).
>
> Hm, really? I routinely run "make check" (ie, parallel regression
> tests) under coverage, and I get results that seem sane. If I were
> losing large chunks of the data, I think I'd have noticed.
>
Parallel regression still just starts single postgres instance no?
--
Petr Jelinek
2ndQuadrant - PostgreSQL Solutions for the Enterprise
https://www.2ndQuadrant.com/
| From | Date | Subject | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Next Message | Etsuro Fujita | 2020-04-03 15:15:36 | Re: [HACKERS] advanced partition matching algorithm for partition-wise join |
| Previous Message | Tom Lane | 2020-04-03 14:59:58 | Re: adding partitioned tables to publications |