Re: coverage additions

2019-06-06 Thread Michael Paquier
On Thu, Jun 06, 2019 at 06:14:45PM +0900, Michael Paquier wrote: > Not sure I still follow.. In src/backend/libpq we have > be-gssapi-common.c and be-gssapi-common.c, both getting added only if > with_gssapi is enabled. I am going to spawn a new thread with a patch for the header file. I think

Re: coverage additions

2019-06-06 Thread Michael Paquier
On Tue, Jun 04, 2019 at 04:07:17PM -0400, Alvaro Herrera wrote: > On 2019-Jun-04, Michael Paquier wrote: >> On Sat, Jun 01, 2019 at 12:55:47AM -0400, Alvaro Herrera wrote: >>> Ah, now I remember that I tried this before, but it requires some extra >>> packages installed in the machine I think, and

Re: coverage additions

2019-06-04 Thread Alvaro Herrera
On 2019-Jun-04, Michael Paquier wrote: > On Sat, Jun 01, 2019 at 12:55:47AM -0400, Alvaro Herrera wrote: > > Ah, now I remember that I tried this before, but it requires some extra > > packages installed in the machine I think, and those create running > > services. Did you note that src/backend/

Re: coverage additions

2019-06-03 Thread Michael Paquier
On Sat, Jun 01, 2019 at 12:55:47AM -0400, Alvaro Herrera wrote: > Ah, now I remember that I tried this before, but it requires some extra > packages installed in the machine I think, and those create running > services. Did you note that src/backend/libpq does not even list the > gssapi file? Do

Re: coverage additions

2019-06-01 Thread Alvaro Herrera
On 2019-Jun-02, Michael Meskes wrote: > On Thu, 2019-05-30 at 17:54 -0400, Tom Lane wrote: > > Alvaro Herrera writes: > > > Or do we just not want this test to be run by default, and thus I > > > should add "make -C src/interfaces/ecpg/test checktcp" to > > > coverage.pg.org's shell script? > >

Re: coverage additions

2019-06-01 Thread Michael Meskes
On Thu, 2019-05-30 at 17:54 -0400, Tom Lane wrote: > Alvaro Herrera writes: > > Apparently, for ecpg you have to do "make checktcp" in order for > > some of > > the tests to run, and "make check-world" doesn't do that. Not sure > > what's a good fix for this; do we want to add "make -C > > src/in

Re: coverage additions

2019-05-31 Thread Alvaro Herrera
On 2019-May-30, Michael Paquier wrote: > On Thu, May 30, 2019 at 01:52:20PM -0400, Alvaro Herrera wrote: > > If there are other obvious improvements to be had, please let me know. > > (We have PG_TEST_EXTRA="ssl ldap" currently, do we have any more extra > > tests now?) > > You can add kerberos t

Re: coverage additions

2019-05-30 Thread Michael Paquier
On Thu, May 30, 2019 at 01:52:20PM -0400, Alvaro Herrera wrote: > If there are other obvious improvements to be had, please let me know. > (We have PG_TEST_EXTRA="ssl ldap" currently, do we have any more extra > tests now?) You can add kerberos to this list, to give: PG_TEST_EXTRA='ssl ldap kerber

Re: coverage additions

2019-05-30 Thread Tom Lane
Alvaro Herrera writes: > Apparently, for ecpg you have to do "make checktcp" in order for some of > the tests to run, and "make check-world" doesn't do that. Not sure > what's a good fix for this; do we want to add "make -C > src/interfaces/ecpg/test checktcp" to what "make check-world" does, > o

Re: coverage additions

2019-05-30 Thread Alvaro Herrera
On 2019-May-30, Tom Lane wrote: > Alvaro Herrera writes: > > I just enabled --enabled-llvm on the coverage reporting machine, which > > made src/backend/jit/jit.c go from 60/71 % (line/function wise) to 78/85 % > > ... > > and src/backend/jit/llvm from not appearing at all in the report to > > 7

Re: coverage additions

2019-05-30 Thread Alvaro Herrera
Apparently, for ecpg you have to do "make checktcp" in order for some of the tests to run, and "make check-world" doesn't do that. Not sure what's a good fix for this; do we want to add "make -C src/interfaces/ecpg/test checktcp" to what "make check-world" does, or do we rather what to add checktc

Re: coverage additions

2019-05-30 Thread Tom Lane
Alvaro Herrera writes: > I just enabled --enabled-llvm on the coverage reporting machine, which > made src/backend/jit/jit.c go from 60/71 % (line/function wise) to 78/85 % ... > and src/backend/jit/llvm from not appearing at all in the report to > 78/94 %. That's a good improvement. > If there