Date: Fri, 11 Feb 2022 15:21:43 -0300
From: Alvaro Herrera <alvherre@alvh.no-ip.org>
To: Justin Pryzby <pryzby@telsasoft.com>
Cc: pgsql-hackers@lists.postgresql.org,
	Simon Riggs <simon.riggs@enterprisedb.com>,
	Tomas Vondra <tomas.vondra@enterprisedb.com>,
	Zhihong Yu <zyu@yugabyte.com>,
	Daniel Westermann <dwe@dbi-services.com>,
	Amit Langote <amitlangote09@gmail.com>,
	Japin Li <japinli@hotmail.com>, Erik Rijkers <er@xs4all.nl>,
	Jaime Casanova <jcasanov@systemguards.com.ec>
Subject: Re: support for MERGE
Message-ID: <202202111821.w3gqblvfp4pr@alvherre.pgsql>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=utf-8
Content-Disposition: inline
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit
In-Reply-To: <20220128231948.GI23027@telsasoft.com>
Archived-At: 
 <https://www.postgresql.org/message-id/202202111821.w3gqblvfp4pr%40alvherre.pgsql>
Precedence: bulk

On 2022-Jan-28, Justin Pryzby wrote:

> Have you looked at code coverage ?  I have an experimental patch to add that to
> cirrus, and ran it with this patch; visible here:
> https://cirrus-ci.com/task/6362512059793408

Ah, thanks, this is useful.  I think it is showing that the new code is
generally well covered, but there are some exceptions, particularly
ExecMergeMatched in some concurrent cases (TM_Deleted and
TM_SelfModified after table_tuple_lock -- those code pages have
user-facing errors but are not covered by any tests.)


How does this work?  I notice it is reporting for
src/bin/pg_upgrade/relfilenode.c, but that file is not changed by this
patch.

-- 
Álvaro Herrera              Valdivia, Chile  —  https://www.EnterpriseDB.com/