Re: gcov coverage data not full with immediate stop

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

In response to

Browse pgsql-hackers by date

  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