Re: Differential code coverage between 16 and HEAD

On Tue, 16 Apr 2024 at 14:29, Andres Freund <andres(at)anarazel(dot)de> wrote:
> I think total_nblocks might also not be entirely stable?

I think it is stable for this test. However, I'll let the buildfarm
make the final call on that.

The reason I want to include it is that I'd like to push the large
allocations to the tail of the block list and make this workload use 2
blocks rather than 3. If I fix that and update the test then it's a
bit of coverage to help ensure that doesn't get broken again.

> How about just
> checking if total_bytes, total_nblocks, free_bytes and used_bytes are bigger
> than 0?

Seems like a good idea. I've done it that way and pushed.

Thanks

David