> If anyone else believes that we should do 92% -> 95% Hi Aleksander,
Thanks for making the patch. I measured get_json_table_plan() with clang source-based coverage. Your v3 is already 100% line coverage. The one thing it misses is a region: the UNION arm of "j->cross ? CROSS : UNION" is never run (llvm-cov: True 1 / False 0 on that line), so region coverage is 97%. Small fix: add a third path and use both sibling joins in the plan -- PLAN (p OUTER ((p1 UNION p2) CROSS p3)). Now UNION is added so region coverage goes to 100% (line stays 100%). Patch attached, test passes. Also, given there is no other comments, move to wait for committer Thanks, Shihao
v4-0001-Improve-get_json_table_plan-test-coverage.patch
Description: Binary data
