> On 29 May 2019, at 15:03, Tom Lane <tgl@sss.pgh.pa.us> wrote:
>
> Pursuant to today's discussion at PGCon about code coverage, I went
> nosing into some of the particularly under-covered subdirectories
> in our tree,
On a similar, but much less important/interesting note. I fat-fingered when
compiling isolationtester on the plane over here and happened to compile
src/test/examples, and in there testlo.c and testlo64.c has two dead functions
for which the callsites have been commented out since the Postgres95 import
(and now cause a warning). Is there any (historic?) reason to keep that code?
It also seems kind of broken as it doesn’t really handle the open() call
failure very well.
cheers ./daniel