Re: pg_stat_statements: more test coverage

On Sat, Dec 30, 2023 at 08:39:47PM +0100, Peter Eisentraut wrote:
> On 29.12.23 06:14, Julien Rouhaud wrote:
>> I agree with Michael on this one, the only times I saw this pattern
>> was to comply with some company internal policy for minimal coverage
>> numbers.
> 
> Ok, skipped that.

Just to close the loop here.  I thought that I had sent a patch on the
lists that made use of these markers, but it looks like that's not the
case.  The only thread I've found is this one:
https://www.postgresql.org/message-id/d8f6bdd536df403b9b33816e9f7e0b9d@G08CNEXMBPEKD05.g08.fujitsu.local

(FWIW, I'm still skeptic about the idea of painting more backend code
with these outside the parsing areas, but I'm OK to be outnumbered.)
--
Michael