On Thu, Oct 24, 2019 at 10:10 PM Andres Freund <and...@anarazel.de> wrote: > Here's a first stab at getting the coverage of tuplesort.c to a > satisfying level. There's still bits uncovered, but that's largely > either a) trace_sort related b) hopefully unreachable stuff c) explain > related. The largest actually missing thing is a disk-based > mark/restore, which probably ought be covered.
Yeah. It looks like function coverage of logtape.c will be 100% once you have coverage of mark and restore. > I think the the test time of this would still be OK, but if not we could > also work a bit more on that angle. That's hard for me to test right now, but offhand this general approach looks good to me. I am pretty sure it's portable. -- Peter Geoghegan
