| From: | Peter Geoghegan <pg(at)heroku(dot)com> |
|---|---|
| To: | Kevin Grittner <kgrittn(at)ymail(dot)com> |
| Cc: | Alvaro Herrera <alvherre(at)2ndquadrant(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> |
| Subject: | Re: Bug in bttext_abbrev_convert() |
| Date: | 2015-07-06 19:34:39 |
| Message-ID: | CAM3SWZSM-UBwwT3Xu=73vhRRGT6uQhyYF-vSQ5CPEeH6CuWc4g@mail.gmail.com |
| Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
| Thread: | |
| Lists: | pgsql-hackers |
On Mon, Jul 6, 2015 at 12:27 PM, Kevin Grittner <kgrittn(at)ymail(dot)com> wrote:
> What would it take to get something like that which uses the
> check-world target instead of just the check target? Without the
> additional tests (like the isolation tests), some of these numbers
> don't reflect the coverage of regularly run tests. While it is of
> some interest what coverage we get on the 30 second `make check`
> runs, I would be a lot more interested in what our coverage is when
> the full 8.5 minute set of regression tests we have in git is run.
I agree. Obviously in some cases the coverage is bad because
concurrency is naturally required. It's even more glaring that
recovery codepaths are always all-red in coverage reports.
--
Peter Geoghegan
| From | Date | Subject | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Next Message | Alvaro Herrera | 2015-07-06 19:52:15 | Re: Bug in bttext_abbrev_convert() |
| Previous Message | Kevin Grittner | 2015-07-06 19:27:06 | Re: Bug in bttext_abbrev_convert() |