Horton

Re: pg_stat_statements: more test coverage

Michael Paquier <michael@paquier.xyz>

View thread View on postgr.es
From: Michael Paquier <michael@paquier.xyz>
To: Peter Eisentraut <peter@eisentraut.org>
Cc: Julien Rouhaud <rjuju123@gmail.com>, pgsql-hackers <pgsql-hackers@postgresql.org>
Date: 2023-12-31T00:31:59Z
Lists: pgsql-hackers 
On Sat, Dec 30, 2023 at 08:39:47PM +0100, Peter Eisentraut wrote:
> On 29.12.23 06:14, Julien Rouhaud wrote:
>> I agree with Michael on this one, the only times I saw this pattern
>> was to comply with some company internal policy for minimal coverage
>> numbers.
> 
> Ok, skipped that.

Just to close the loop here.  I thought that I had sent a patch on the
lists that made use of these markers, but it looks like that's not the
case.  The only thread I've found is this one:
https://www.postgresql.org/message-id/d8f6bdd536df403b9b33816e9f7e0b9d@G08CNEXMBPEKD05.g08.fujitsu.local

(FWIW, I'm still skeptic about the idea of painting more backend code
with these outside the parsing areas, but I'm OK to be outnumbered.)
--
Michael

Commits

  1. Revert "pg_stat_statements: Add coverage for entry_dealloc()"

  2. pg_stat_statements: Add TAP test for testing restarts

  3. pg_stat_statements: Add coverage for entry_dealloc()

  4. pg_stat_statements: Add test coverage for pg_stat_statements_1_8()

  5. pg_stat_statements: Add test coverage for pg_stat_statements_reset_1_7