On Mon, Aug 31, 2026 at 01:43:22PM +0300, Nazir Bilal Yavuz wrote: > Doesn't '--limit N' decrease coverage? For example,
Yeah, I am worried about that for tests with dedicated outputs checked. > @lines = > test_pg_waldump($path, $start_lsn, $end_lsn, '--rmgr' => 'Btree'); > is(grep(!/^rmgr: Btree/, @lines), 0, 'only Btree lines'); > ` > was checking all Btree records from $start to $end. However, > > Also, if I am not mistaken, after this patch there is no test that > confirms pg_waldump runs correctly from start to end. I'd still want that once, yes. >> - my @lines = test_pg_waldump($path, $start_lsn, $end_lsn); >> - is(grep(!/^rmgr: \w/, @lines), 0, 'all output lines are rmgr lines'); >> - >> - @lines = test_pg_waldump($path, $contrecord_lsn, $end_lsn); >> + my @lines = test_pg_waldump($path, $contrecord_lsn, $end_lsn); >> >> Does this removal imply a loss of coverage? > > I think you are right. At least, we lose coverage of tar and gzip inputs. As far as I remember my read of the patch yesterday, various --limit=1 additions don't really matter because we do not care about checking dedicated output patterns: we just want to make a quick check that some command pattern works. If we only include these, how much time are we able to cut? I'd guess that it would still be a nice chunk, but I did not test.. And we could backpatch that as well. -- Michael
signature.asc
Description: PGP signature
