Hi, On Fri, Jan 9, 2026 at 10:18 AM Neil Chen <[email protected]> wrote: > > Hi Tom, > > On Fri, Jan 9, 2026 at 12:05 AM Tom Lane <[email protected]> wrote: >> >> >> What makes you think this code isn't adequately tested already? >> The coverage report at >> >> https://coverage.postgresql.org/src/backend/replication/logical/snapbuild.c.gcov.html >> >> shows SnapBuildPurgeOlderTxn as pretty fully exercised. >> > > I wasn’t aware of this website before, so thank you for sharing it. > Actually, this patch evolved from a tiny, "casual" quick-fix patch in its > very first version. I agree that the current effort invested in it possible > has outweighed the potential benefits it may bring. > > On a side note, I’m a beginner with PostgreSQL and trying to take on some > simple tasks while deepening my understanding of the system. I noticed that > many items in the coverage tests you provided have rather low coverage rates > (< 75%). Do you think it would be worthwhile to add more test cases to > improve their test coverage? I’d appreciate any advice the community can > offer on this.
I think improving test coverage is generally beneficial and also helps build familiarity with the codebase. -- Best, Xuneng
