| From: | Peter Geoghegan <pg(at)heroku(dot)com> |
|---|---|
| To: | Alvaro Herrera <alvherre(at)2ndquadrant(dot)com> |
| Cc: | Kevin Grittner <kgrittn(at)ymail(dot)com>, Michael Paquier <michael(dot)paquier(at)gmail(dot)com>, Jim Nasby <Jim(dot)Nasby(at)bluetreble(dot)com>, Pg Hackers <pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org>, Robert Haas <robertmhaas(at)gmail(dot)com>, Peter Eisentraut <peter_e(at)gmx(dot)net> |
| Subject: | Re: Bug in bttext_abbrev_convert() |
| Date: | 2015-07-14 18:50:14 |
| Message-ID: | CAM3SWZS5CEmXuZT3X2yytu8K9Vhe3=kZb66KxRF5ptvJqRup7g@mail.gmail.com |
| Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
| Thread: | |
| Lists: | pgsql-hackers |
On Mon, Jul 6, 2015 at 12:52 PM, Alvaro Herrera
<alvherre(at)2ndquadrant(dot)com> wrote:
> I suggest CC'ing Peter as a first measure. I already suggested this (or
> something similar) to him months ago.
This would be a worthwhile effort. tuplesort.c only has 46% coverage.
There is no coverage for functions that I know are used all the time
in production, like dumptuples(), or ExecHashIncreaseNumBatches().
We should make increasing test coverage an explicit goal. Ideally,
there'd be a lower quality set of tests that fill in certain gaps in
code coverage, but are used less frequently, and may take much longer
to run. Simply having the code executed will allow tools like Valgrind
to catch bugs.
--
Peter Geoghegan
| From | Date | Subject | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Next Message | David Guimaraes | 2015-07-14 18:51:20 | Re: Forensic recovery deleted pgdump custom format file |
| Previous Message | Gianni | 2015-07-14 18:40:59 | Re: Could be improved point of UPSERT |