From: | Michael Paquier <michael(at)paquier(dot)xyz> |
---|---|
To: | Ashutosh Bapat <ashutosh(dot)bapat(dot)oss(at)gmail(dot)com> |
Cc: | Alexander Lakhin <exclusion(at)gmail(dot)com>, Alvaro Herrera <alvherre(at)2ndquadrant(dot)com>, pgsql-hackers <pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org> |
Subject: | Re: gcov coverage data not full with immediate stop |
Date: | 2020-05-13 07:43:19 |
Message-ID: | 20200513074319.GP88791@paquier.xyz |
Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
Thread: | |
Lists: | pgsql-hackers |
On Mon, May 11, 2020 at 05:56:33PM +0530, Ashutosh Bapat wrote:
> What happens if a coverage tool other than gcov is used? From that
> perspective, it's better to perform a clean shutdown in the TAP tests
> instead of immediate if that's possible.
Nope, as that's the fastest path we have to shut down any remaining
nodes at the end of a test per the END{} block at the end of
PostgresNode.pm, and I would rather keep it this way because people
tend to like keeping around a lot of clusters alive at the end of any
new test added and shutdown checkpoints are not free either even if
fsync is enforced to off in the tests.
I think that a solution turning around __gcov_flush() could be the
best deal we have, as discussed last year in the thread Álvaro quoted
upthread, and I would vote for waiting until v14 opens for business
before merging something we consider worth it.
--
Michael
From | Date | Subject | |
---|---|---|---|
Next Message | Michael Paquier | 2020-05-13 07:48:59 | Re: Event trigger code comment duplication |
Previous Message | Michael Paquier | 2020-05-13 07:30:18 | Re: No core file generated after PostgresNode->start |