"Kevin Grittner" <kevin.gritt...@wicourts.gov> wrote: > Alvaro Herrera <alvhe...@commandprompt.com> wrote: > >> BTW did you try "make coverage" and friends? See >> http://www.postgresql.org/docs/9.0/static/regress-coverage.html >> and >> http://developer.postgresql.org/~petere/coverage/ > > I had missed that; thanks for pointing it out! > > I'm doing a coverage build now, to see what coverage we get from > `make check` (probably not much) and `make dcheck`. Well, that was a bit better than I expected. While the overall code coverage for PostgreSQL source code is: Overall coverage rate: lines......: 64.8% (130296 of 201140 lines) functions..: 72.0% (7997 of 11109 functions) The coverage for predicate.c, after running both check and dcheck, was (formatted to match above): lines......: 69.8% (925 of 1325 lines) functions..: 85.7% (48 of 56 functions) Most of what was missed was in the SLRU or 2PC code, which is expected. I'll bet that the DBT-2 runs, between the "normal" and TEST_OLDSERXID flavors, would get us about 2/3 of the way from those numbers toward 100%, with almost all the residual being in 2PC. Does anyone have suggestions for automated 2PC tests? -Kevin
-- Sent via pgsql-hackers mailing list (pgsql-hackers@postgresql.org) To make changes to your subscription: http://www.postgresql.org/mailpref/pgsql-hackers
