Received: from malur.postgresql.org ([217.196.149.56]) by arkaria.postgresql.org with esmtps (TLS1.3:ECDHE_RSA_AES_256_GCM_SHA384:256) (Exim 4.92) (envelope-from ) id 1jKNng-0003Bj-Ol for pgsql-hackers@arkaria.postgresql.org; Fri, 03 Apr 2020 15:00:04 +0000 Received: from localhost ([127.0.0.1] helo=malur.postgresql.org) by malur.postgresql.org with esmtp (Exim 4.92) (envelope-from ) id 1jKNnf-0008Dd-Kx for pgsql-hackers@arkaria.postgresql.org; Fri, 03 Apr 2020 15:00:03 +0000 Received: from makus.postgresql.org ([2001:4800:3e1:1::229]) by malur.postgresql.org with esmtps (TLS1.3:ECDHE_RSA_AES_256_GCM_SHA384:256) (Exim 4.92) (envelope-from ) id 1jKNnf-0008DW-Dx for pgsql-hackers@lists.postgresql.org; Fri, 03 Apr 2020 15:00:03 +0000 Received: from sss.pgh.pa.us ([66.207.139.130]) by makus.postgresql.org with esmtps (TLS1.2:ECDHE_RSA_AES_256_GCM_SHA384:256) (Exim 4.92) (envelope-from ) id 1jKNnd-0003rP-Cb for pgsql-hackers@postgresql.org; Fri, 03 Apr 2020 15:00:02 +0000 Received: from sss1.sss.pgh.pa.us (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by sss.pgh.pa.us (8.14.4/8.14.4) with ESMTP id 033ExwlX005184; Fri, 3 Apr 2020 10:59:58 -0400 From: Tom Lane To: Petr Jelinek cc: Amit Langote , Peter Eisentraut , Rafia Sabih , PostgreSQL-development Subject: Re: adding partitioned tables to publications In-reply-to: <44ecae53-9861-71b7-1d43-4658acc52519@2ndquadrant.com> References: <4f999141-97c8-c968-a726-0a1ec3e36e47@2ndquadrant.com> <44ecae53-98! 61-71b7-1d43-4658acc52519@2ndquadrant.com> Comments: In-reply-to Petr Jelinek message dated "Fri, 03 Apr 2020 16:43:17 +0200" MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Content-ID: <5182.1585925998.1@sss.pgh.pa.us> Date: Fri, 03 Apr 2020 10:59:58 -0400 Message-ID: <5183.1585925998@sss.pgh.pa.us> List-Id: List-Help: List-Subscribe: List-Post: List-Owner: List-Archive: Precedence: bulk Petr Jelinek writes: > AFAIK gcov can't handle multiple instances of same process being started > as it just overwrites the coverage files. So for TAP test it will report > bogus info (as in some code that's executed will look as not executed). Hm, really? I routinely run "make check" (ie, parallel regression tests) under coverage, and I get results that seem sane. If I were losing large chunks of the data, I think I'd have noticed. regards, tom lane