Hi, On 2019-10-25 12:37:38 +0100, Peter Geoghegan wrote: > 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.
Yea, it's definitely better after. > > 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. I pushed this now. We'll see what the slower buildfarm animals say. I'll try to see how long they took in a few days. Greetings, Andres Freund
