| From: | Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us> |
|---|---|
| To: | Petr Jelinek <petr(at)2ndquadrant(dot)com> |
| 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: | 2020-04-04 05:25:07 |
| Message-ID: | 13925.1585977907@sss.pgh.pa.us |
| Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
| Thread: | |
| Lists: | pgsql-hackers |
Petr Jelinek <petr(at)2ndquadrant(dot)com> writes:
> On 03/04/2020 17:51, Tom Lane wrote:
>> But the forked-off children have to write the gcov files independently,
>> don't they?
> Hmm that's very good point. I did see these missing coverage issue when
> running tests that explicitly start more instances of postgres before
> though. And with some quick googling, parallel testing seems to be issue
> with gcov for more people.
I poked around and found this:
https://gcc.gnu.org/legacy-ml/gcc-help/2005-11/msg00074.html
which says
gcov instrumentation is multi-process safe, but not multi-thread
safe. The multi-processing safety relies on OS level file locking,
which is not available on some systems.
That would explain why it works for me, but then there's a question
of why it doesn't work for you ...
regards, tom lane
| From | Date | Subject | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Next Message | Julien Rouhaud | 2020-04-04 06:03:03 | Re: WAL usage calculation patch |
| Previous Message | Amit Kapila | 2020-04-04 05:08:14 | Re: WAL usage calculation patch |