Re: Increasing test coverage of WAL redo functions

Alvaro Herrera <alvherre(at)2ndquadrant(dot)com> writes:
> Heikki Linnakangas wrote:
>> 2. These make the regression database larger. The following tables and
>> indexes are added:

> I think it's good to have these tests, though Tom was complaining
> earlier about the size of the regression test database. Would it work
> to have this in a separate test suite, like the numeric_big stuff?

I was going to suggest the same.

> BTW looking at the lcov reports the other day I noticed that the lines
> PG_FUNCTION_INFO_V1 do not get marked as "ran", which decreases the
> coverage percentages ... in one of the BRIN files this was quite
> noticeable, bringing the function coverage count down to about 50-60%
> when it should have been 100%.

Kind of off topic for this thread, but why are those there at all?
They are unnecessary for internal C functions.

regards, tom lane