| From: | Dean Rasheed <dean(dot)a(dot)rasheed(at)gmail(dot)com> |
|---|---|
| To: | Daniel Gustafsson <daniel(at)yesql(dot)se> |
| Cc: | Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us>, PostgreSQL Hackers <pgsql-hackers(at)lists(dot)postgresql(dot)org> |
| Subject: | Re: numeric_big in make check? |
| Date: | 2024-02-19 14:03:21 |
| Message-ID: | CAEZATCW0GvY1bLhea2r0H21-xsvj9uyN0z12sXWjnmv1s3gKMA@mail.gmail.com |
| Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
| Thread: | |
| Lists: | pgsql-hackers |
> > On 19 Feb 2024, at 12:48, Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us> wrote:
> >
> > Or we could just flush it. It's never detected a bug, and I think
> > you'd find that it adds zero code coverage (or if not, we could
> > fix that in a far more surgical and less expensive manner).
>
Off the top of my head, I can't say to what extent that's true, but it
wouldn't surprise me if at least some of the tests added in the last 4
commits to touch that file aren't covered by tests elsewhere. Indeed
that certainly looks like the case for 18a02ad2a5. I'm sure those
tests could be pared down though.
Regards,
Dean
| From | Date | Subject | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Next Message | Laurenz Albe | 2024-02-19 14:08:45 | Re: Speeding up COPY TO for uuids and arrays |
| Previous Message | Tomas Vondra | 2024-02-19 13:47:37 | Re: Optimize planner memory consumption for huge arrays |