Re: Differential code coverage between 16 and HEAD - Mailing list pgsql-hackers

From David Rowley
Subject Re: Differential code coverage between 16 and HEAD
Date
Msg-id CAApHDvrETprgRvSn5aH1-69ij_Oatjnx3POuUt3WDkkBJ7E7pg@mail.gmail.com
Whole thread Raw
In response to Re: Differential code coverage between 16 and HEAD  (Andres Freund <andres@anarazel.de>)
List pgsql-hackers
On Tue, 16 Apr 2024 at 14:29, Andres Freund <andres@anarazel.de> wrote:
> I think total_nblocks might also not be entirely stable?

I think it is stable for this test.  However, I'll let the buildfarm
make the final call on that.

The reason I want to include it is that I'd like to push the large
allocations to the tail of the block list and make this workload use 2
blocks rather than 3.  If I fix that and update the test then it's a
bit of coverage to help ensure that doesn't get broken again.

> How about just
> checking if total_bytes, total_nblocks, free_bytes and used_bytes are bigger
> than 0?

Seems like a good idea.  I've done it that way and pushed.

Thanks

David



pgsql-hackers by date:

Previous
From: Masahiko Sawada
Date:
Subject: Re: POC PATCH: copy from ... exceptions to: (was Re: VLDB Features)
Next
From: shveta malik
Date:
Subject: Re: promotion related handling in pg_sync_replication_slots()