From: | Alvaro Herrera <alvherre(at)alvh(dot)no-ip(dot)org> |
---|---|
To: | Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us> |
Cc: | Magnus Hagander <magnus(at)hagander(dot)net>, Peter Geoghegan <pg(at)bowt(dot)ie>, Andrew Dunstan <andrew(at)dunslane(dot)net>, PostgreSQL www <pgsql-www(at)postgresql(dot)org> |
Subject: | Re: coverage.postgresql.org not being refreshed |
Date: | 2021-01-24 16:27:40 |
Message-ID: | 20210124162740.GA1353@alvherre.pgsql |
Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
Thread: | |
Lists: | pgsql-www |
On 2021-Jan-23, Tom Lane wrote:
> Enlarging on that a little: the coverage in src/interfaces/ecpg
> changes from
> 11860/(11860+12555.) = 0.48577
> to
> 11908/(11908+12507.) = 0.48773
Hm, a 0.2% increase ... sounds marginal.
The other two increases are more interesting, but if the code is already
covered by ssl/ldap/kerberos, then the checktcp test isn't buying much there
either.
So the script has this:
make -j12
make -j12 -C contrib
make -j12 -Otarget check-world PG_TEST_EXTRA="ssl ldap kerberos"
make -C src/interfaces/ecpg/test checktcp
make coverage-html
I mentioned in https://postgr.es/m/20190530202311.GA22421@alvherre.pgsql
that ecpg coverage was bad, and that it increased with "checktcp". I
didn't quote exactly what was the change, though :-(
If what this test mode adds is really just a 0.2% increase, then that
doesn't seem worth the risk. I think the only extra test it runs is
connect/test1.
--
Álvaro Herrera Valdivia, Chile
"Ed is the standard text editor."
http://groups.google.com/group/alt.religion.emacs/msg/8d94ddab6a9b0ad3
From | Date | Subject | |
---|---|---|---|
Next Message | Justin Pryzby | 2021-01-24 17:53:26 | Re: missing ML messages |
Previous Message | Magnus Hagander | 2021-01-24 13:37:33 | Re: missing ML messages |