Stephen Frost wrote:

> What would be really nice would be code coverage information for the
> back-branches also, as that would allow us to figure out what we're
> missing coverage for.  I realize that we don't like adding new things to
> back-branches as those changes could impact packagers, but that might
> not impact them since that only runs when you run 'make coverage'.

Hmm?  9.1 already has "make coverage", so there's nothing to backpatch.
Do you mean to backpatch that infrastructure even further back than

Or perhaps you are saying that should report results for
each branch separately?  We could do that ...

Álvaro Herrera      
PostgreSQL Development, 24x7 Support, Remote DBA, Training & Services

Sent via pgsql-hackers mailing list (
To make changes to your subscription:

Reply via email to