On 14.06.23 09:16, Peter Eisentraut wrote:
> On 06.09.22 07:57, Peter Eisentraut wrote:
>>> I wrote a test for coverage.
>>> Unfortunately, it seems to take quite a while to run the test.
>>> I want to improve these execution times, but I don't know exactly
>>> what to do.
>>> Therefore, I want to hear feedback from many people.
>
>> I think having some more test coverage for pg_waldump would be good,
>> so I encourage you to continue working on this.
>
> I made an updated patch that incorporates many of your ideas and code,
> just made it a bit more compact, and added more tests for various
> command-line options. This moves the test coverage of pg_waldump from
> "bloodbath" to "mixed fruit salad", which I think is pretty good
> progress. And now there is room for additional patches if someone wants
> to figure out, e.g., how to get more complete coverage in gindesc.c or
> whatever.
Here is an updated patch set. I added a test case for the "first record
is after" message. Also, I think this message should really go to
stderr, since it's more of a notice or warning, so I changed it to use
pg_log_info.