Re: tests for pg_stat_progress_copy.tuples_skipped

From: Josef Šimánek <josef(dot)simanek(at)gmail(dot)com>
To: Fujii Masao <masao(dot)fujii(at)oss(dot)nttdata(dot)com>
Cc: jian he <jian(dot)universality(at)gmail(dot)com>, PostgreSQL Hackers <pgsql-hackers(at)lists(dot)postgresql(dot)org>
Subject: Re: tests for pg_stat_progress_copy.tuples_skipped
Date: 2025-03-04 09:40:04
Message-ID: CAFp7QwqhtSXiWYDd9D+F1nAR7VdChWE7Zx+NWsR6ZRS5Gg2BWQ@mail.gmail.com
Views: Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email
Thread:
Lists: pgsql-hackers

po 3. 3. 2025 v 10:05 odesílatel Fujii Masao
<masao(dot)fujii(at)oss(dot)nttdata(dot)com> napsal:
>
>
>
> On 2025/01/10 23:50, jian he wrote:
> > hi.
> > seems no regress tests for pg_stat_progress_copy.tuples_skipped.
> >
> > CopyFrom
> > pgstat_progress_update_param(PROGRESS_COPY_TUPLES_SKIPPED,
> > cstate->num_errors);
> >
> > there is coverage for it. but in regress test, we didn't really print
> > out this value (cstate->num_errors)
> >
> > The attached patch did minor changes on src/test/regress/sql/copy.sql.
> > so we can check if pgstat_progress_update_param(PROGRESS_COPY_TUPLES_SKIPPED..)
> > is working as intended or not.
>
> Thanks for the patch!
>
> The patch basically looks good to me.
> I’ve made some minor cosmetic adjustments — the updated patch is attached.
>
> Unless there are any objections, I'm thinking to commit it.

Looks good to me.

> Regards,
>
> --
> Fujii Masao
> Advanced Computing Technology Center
> Research and Development Headquarters
> NTT DATA CORPORATION

In response to

Browse pgsql-hackers by date

  From Date Subject
Next Message Bertrand Drouvot 2025-03-04 09:40:06 Re: Log connection establishment timings
Previous Message Daniel Gustafsson 2025-03-04 09:36:08 Re: Reduce the instruction overhead of OpenSSL calls