On 06.09.22 07:57, Peter Eisentraut wrote:
>> I wrote a test for coverage.
>> Unfortunately, it seems to take quite a while to run the test.
>> I want to improve these execution times, but I don't know exactly what
>> to do.
>> Therefore, I want to hear feedback from many people.
> I think having some more test coverage for pg_waldump would be good, so
> I encourage you to continue working on this.
I made an updated patch that incorporates many of your ideas and code,
just made it a bit more compact, and added more tests for various
command-line options. This moves the test coverage of pg_waldump from
"bloodbath" to "mixed fruit salad", which I think is pretty good
progress. And now there is room for additional patches if someone wants
to figure out, e.g., how to get more complete coverage in gindesc.c or
whatever.