Re: tuplesort test coverage

On Thu, Oct 24, 2019 at 10:10 PM Andres Freund <andres@anarazel.de> wrote:
> Here's a first stab at getting the coverage of tuplesort.c to a
> satisfying level.  There's still bits uncovered, but that's largely
> either a) trace_sort related b) hopefully unreachable stuff c) explain
> related. The largest actually missing thing is a disk-based
> mark/restore, which probably ought be covered.

Yeah. It looks like function coverage of logtape.c will be 100% once
you have coverage of mark and restore.

> I think the the test time of this would still be OK, but if not we could
> also work a bit more on that angle.

That's hard for me to test right now, but offhand this general
approach looks good to me. I am pretty sure it's portable.

-- 
Peter Geoghegan