Re: Coverage (lcov) failing with inconsistent error in versions 2.x

On 2026-Jul-06, Jacob Champion wrote:

> On Fri, Jul 3, 2026 at 1:17 PM Álvaro Herrera  wrote:
> > I added -j0 to both so that they run parallel processes, which should be
> > a few second faster.
> 
> As a heads up, I found that adding parallelism on my local machine ran
> it out of memory pretty quickly, with lcov 2.4. YMMV.

Strange!

Anyway I noticed that "-j0" doesn't work -- apparently it has to be "-j 0".
I'll see how bad the memory usage gets on the next report, and turn that
off (or set it lower?) if things are too tight.

-- 
Álvaro Herrera        Breisgau, Deutschland  —  https://www.EnterpriseDB.com/
"Pido que me den el Nobel por razones humanitarias" (Nicanor Parra)