On Fri, Dec 23, 2022 at 1:12 PM Hayato Kuroda (Fujitsu)
<kuroda.hay...@fujitsu.com> wrote:
>
> Dear hackers,
>
> > I will check and report the test coverage if I can.
>
> I ran make coverage. PSA the screen shot that shows results.
> According to the result the coverage seemed to be not changed
> even if the elapsed time was reduced.
>
> Only following lines at process_syncing_tables_for_apply() seemed to be not
> hit after patching,
> but I thought it was the timing issue because we do not modify around there.
>
> ```
> /*
> * Enter busy loop and wait for
> synchronization worker to
> * reach expected state (or die
> trying).
> */
> if (!started_tx)
> {
> StartTransactionCommand();
> started_tx = true;
> }
> ```
>
This part of the code is related to synchronization between apply and
sync workers which depends upon timing. So, we can ignore this
difference.
--
With Regards,
Amit Kapila.
