Re: [HACKERS] code coverage patch

Gregory Stark wrote:
> Peter Eisentraut <peter_e@gmx.net> writes:
>
> > I have uploaded an example run here:
> > http://developer.postgresql.org/~petere/coverage/
> >
> > Current test coverage is about 66% overall.
>
> With some pretty glaring gaps: 0% coverage of geqo, 0% coverage of logtape
> which implies no tuplesorts are spilling to disk, no coverage of mark/restore
> on index scans...

Yah, that kinda shocked me too. Clearly we should spend some effort to
expand the regression tests a bit.

--
Alvaro Herrera http://www.CommandPrompt.com/
The PostgreSQL Company - Command Prompt, Inc.

--
Sent via pgsql-hackers mailing list (pgsql-hackers@postgresql.org)
To make changes to your subscription:
http://www.postgresql.org/mailpref/pgsql-hackers