Re: code coverage patch

From: Gregory Stark <stark(at)enterprisedb(dot)com>
To: Peter Eisentraut <peter_e(at)gmx(dot)net>
Cc: Michelle Caisse <Michelle(dot)Caisse(at)Sun(dot)COM>, Alvaro Herrera <alvherre(at)commandprompt(dot)com>, PG Hackers <pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org>
Subject: Re: code coverage patch
Date: 2008-09-05 14:05:55
Message-ID: 877i9q4ri4.fsf@oxford.xeocode.com
Views: Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email
Thread:
Lists: pgsql-hackers

Peter Eisentraut <peter_e(at)gmx(dot)net> writes:

> I have uploaded an example run here:
> http://developer.postgresql.org/~petere/coverage/
>
> Current test coverage is about 66% overall.

With some pretty glaring gaps: 0% coverage of geqo, 0% coverage of logtape
which implies no tuplesorts are spilling to disk, no coverage of mark/restore
on index scans...

--
Gregory Stark
EnterpriseDB http://www.enterprisedb.com
Get trained by Bruce Momjian - ask me about EnterpriseDB's PostgreSQL training!

In response to

Responses

Browse pgsql-hackers by date

  From Date Subject
Next Message D'Arcy J.M. Cain 2008-09-05 14:06:10 Noisy CVS updates
Previous Message Andriy Bakay 2008-09-05 14:04:20 PostgreSQL SSL problem