Hello Tom,
Could we maintain coverage by adding a TAP test? See 1 liner attached.
Is this issue *really* worth expending test cycles on forevermore?
With this argument consistently applied, postgres code coverage is
consistently weak, with 25% of the code never executed, and 15% of
functions never called. "psql" is abysmal, "libpq" is really weak.
Test cycles are not free, and I see zero reason to think that a
check of this sort would ever catch any bugs. Now, if you had a
way to detect that somebody had forgotten the case in some new
program, that would be interesting.
It could get broken somehow, and the test would catch it?
That would be the only command which tests this feature?
This is a TAP test, not a test run on basic "make check". The cost is not
measurable: pgbench 533 TAP tests run in 5 wallclock seconds, and this
added test does not change that much.
Now, if you say you are against it, then it is rejected…
--
Fabien.
