On Wednesday, February 14, 2024 10:40 AM Amit Kapila <amit.kapila16@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> On Tue, Feb 13, 2024 at 9:25 PM Bertrand Drouvot
> <bertranddrouvot.pg@gmail.com> wrote:
> >
> > On Tue, Feb 13, 2024 at 05:20:35PM +0530, Amit Kapila wrote:
> > > On Tue, Feb 13, 2024 at 4:59 PM Bertrand Drouvot
> > > <bertranddrouvot.pg@gmail.com> wrote:
> > > > - 84% of the slotsync.c code is covered, the parts that are not
> > > > are mainly related to "errors".
> > > >
> > > > Worth to try to extend the coverage? (I've in mind 731, 739, 766,
> > > > 778, 786, 796,
> > > > 808)
> > > >
> > >
> > > All these additional line numbers mentioned by you are ERROR paths.
> > > I think if we want we can easily cover most of those but I am not
> > > sure if there is a benefit to cover each error path.
> >
> > Yeah, I think 731, 739 and one among the remaining ones mentioned
> > up-thread should be enough, thoughts?
> >
>
> I don't know how beneficial those selective ones would be but if I have to pick a
> few among those then I would pick the ones at 731 and 808. The reason is that
> 731 is related to cascading standby restriction which we may uplift in the future
> and at that time one needs to be careful about the behavior, for 808 as well, in
> the future, we may have a separate GUC for slot_db_name. These may not be
> good enough reasons as to why we add tests for these ERROR cases but not for
> others, however, if we have to randomly pick a few among all ERROR paths,
> these seem better to me than others.
Here is V87 patch that adds test for the suggested cases.
Best Regards,
Hou zj