> On Sep 11, 2025, at 9:36 PM, Michael Paquier <mich...@paquier.xyz> wrote: > > On Thu, Sep 11, 2025 at 06:56:07AM -0400, Greg Burd wrote: >> Just for reference I started this not to increase coverage, which is a good >> goal just not the one I had. I was reviewing the API and considering some >> changes based on other work I've done. Now that I see how deeply baked in >> this code is I think that's unlikely. Maybe something else distinct for >> bitmaps over 64-bit space at some point will be useful. I wrote this code >> just to capture the API in test form. > > How much does this measure in terms of numbers produced by > coverage-html (see [1])? The paths taken don't always matter as it > can also be important to check combinations of code paths that are > taken by other tests when checking after edge cases, but that would > give an idea of gain vs extra runtime. Not objecting to your patch, > just being curious as I am not seeing any numbers posted on this > thread. > > [1]: https://www.postgresql.org/docs/devel/regress-coverage.html > -- > Michael
Sawada-san, Michael, Thank you both for the push to measure. Before the patch as it stands now the coverage for src/backend/nodes/bitmapset.c is 63.5% and after it is 66.5%. Not an amazing difference, but something. I guess I expected this to be higher given the degree to which this datatype is used. I'll review the gaps in coverage and update the tests. I'll look for a way to add meaningful randomization. -greg
