Re: get_object_address support for additional object types

Stephen Frost wrote:

> It'd certainly be great to have more testing in general, but we're not
> going to be able to include complete code coverage tests in the normal
> set of regression tests which are run..  What I've been thinking for a
> while (probably influenced by other discussion) is that we should have
> the buildfarm running tests for code coverage as those are async from
> the development process.  That isn't to say we shouldn't add more tests
> to the main regression suite when it makes sense to, we certainly
> should, but we really need to be looking at code coverage tools and
> adding tests to improve our test coverage which can be run by the
> buildfarm animals (or even just a subset of them, if we feel that having
> all the animals running them would be excessive).

Well, we already have make targets for gcov and friends; you get some
HTML charts and marked-up source lines with coverage counts, etc.  I
don't think we've made any use of that.  It'd be neat to have something
similar to our doxygen service, running some test suite and publishing
the reports on the web.  I remember trying to convince someone to set
that up for the community, but that seems to have yield no results.

We had someone else trying to submit patches to improve coverage of the
regression tests, but (probably due to wrong stars alignment) they
started with CREATE DATABASE which made the tests a lot slower, which
got the patches turned down -- the submitter disappeared after that
IIRC, probably discouraged by the lack of results.

-- 
Álvaro Herrera                http://www.2ndQuadrant.com/
PostgreSQL Development, 24x7 Support, Remote DBA, Training & Services