On Sun, Apr 14, 2024 at 6:33 PM Andres Freund <and...@anarazel.de> wrote: > - Some of the new walsummary code could use more tests. > > https://anarazel.de/postgres/cov/16-vs-HEAD-2024-04-14/src/backend/backup/walsummaryfuncs.c.gcov.html#L69
So this is pg_wal_summary_contents() and pg_get_wal_summarizer_state(). I was reluctant to try to cover these because I thought it would be hard to get the tests to be stable. The difficulties in stabilizing src/bin/pg_walsummary/t/002_blocks.pl seem to demonstrate that this concern wasn't entire unfounded, but as far as I know that test is now stable, so we could probably use the same technique to test pg_wal_summary_contents(), maybe even as part of the same test case. I don't really know what a good test for pg_get_wal_summarizer_state() would look like, though. > > https://anarazel.de/postgres/cov/16-vs-HEAD-2024-04-14/src/bin/pg_combinebackup/pg_combinebackup.c.gcov.html#L424 I guess we could test this by adding a tablespace, and a tablespace mapping, to one of the pg_combinebackup tests. > > https://anarazel.de/postgres/cov/16-vs-HEAD-2024-04-14/src/common/blkreftable.c.gcov.html#L790 This is dead code. I thought we might need to use this as a way of managing memory pressure, but it didn't end up being needed. We could remove it, or mark it #if NOT_USED, or whatever. -- Robert Haas EDB: http://www.enterprisedb.com
