From: Tom Lane <tgl@sss.pgh.pa.us>
To: Robert Haas <robertmhaas@gmail.com>
cc: pgsql-bugs@postgresql.org
Subject: Re: [postgresql 10 beta3] unrecognized node type: 90
In-reply-to: <11673.1502467154@sss.pgh.pa.us>
References: 
 <CAL7LBcYM-32B=n_-h_wPHWiML26UvqP3b_WxD7MgXgOwmxvTFw@mail.gmail.com>
 <11673.1502467154@sss.pgh.pa.us>
Comments: In-reply-to Tom Lane <tgl@sss.pgh.pa.us>
	message dated "Fri, 11 Aug 2017 11:59:14 -0400"
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"
Content-ID: <27199.1502482851.1@sss.pgh.pa.us>
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
Date: Fri, 11 Aug 2017 16:20:51 -0400
Message-ID: <27200.1502482851@sss.pgh.pa.us>
Precedence: bulk
Sender: pgsql-bugs-owner@postgresql.org

I wrote:
> So, apparently somebody wrote ExecReScanGatherMerge, but never bothered
> to plug it into ExecReScan.  From which we may draw depressing conclusions
> about how much it's been tested.

While I'm bitching ... the code coverage report at

https://coverage.postgresql.org/src/backend/executor/nodeGatherMerge.c.gcov=
.html

also leaves one with less than a warm feeling about the extent of test
coverage on this file.  heap_compare_slots isn't invoked even once?

			regards, tom lane


--=20
Sent via pgsql-bugs mailing list (pgsql-bugs@postgresql.org)
To make changes to your subscription:
http://www.postgresql.org/mailpref/pgsql-bugs