On Tue, Feb 13, 2024 at 9:25 PM Bertrand Drouvot
<bertranddrouvot.pg@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> On Tue, Feb 13, 2024 at 05:20:35PM +0530, Amit Kapila wrote:
> > On Tue, Feb 13, 2024 at 4:59 PM Bertrand Drouvot
> > <bertranddrouvot.pg@gmail.com> wrote:
> > > - 84% of the slotsync.c code is covered, the parts that are not are mainly
> > > related to "errors".
> > >
> > > Worth to try to extend the coverage? (I've in mind 731, 739, 766, 778, 786, 796,
> > > 808)
> > >
> >
> > All these additional line numbers mentioned by you are ERROR paths. I
> > think if we want we can easily cover most of those but I am not sure
> > if there is a benefit to cover each error path.
>
> Yeah, I think 731, 739 and one among the remaining ones mentioned up-thread should
> be enough, thoughts?
>
I don't know how beneficial those selective ones would be but if I
have to pick a few among those then I would pick the ones at 731 and
808. The reason is that 731 is related to cascading standby
restriction which we may uplift in the future and at that time one
needs to be careful about the behavior, for 808 as well, in the
future, we may have a separate GUC for slot_db_name. These may not be
good enough reasons as to why we add tests for these ERROR cases but
not for others, however, if we have to randomly pick a few among all
ERROR paths, these seem better to me than others.
--
With Regards,
Amit Kapila.