| From: | Jacob Champion <jacob(dot)champion(at)enterprisedb(dot)com> |
|---|---|
| To: | Andrew Dunstan <andrew(at)dunslane(dot)net> |
| Cc: | Michael Paquier <michael(at)paquier(dot)xyz>, Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us>, Nathan Bossart <nathandbossart(at)gmail(dot)com>, Jelte Fennema-Nio <postgres(at)jeltef(dot)nl>, Amit Langote <amitlangote09(at)gmail(dot)com>, Robert Haas <robertmhaas(at)gmail(dot)com>, Peter Smith <smithpb2250(at)gmail(dot)com>, PostgreSQL Hackers <pgsql-hackers(at)lists(dot)postgresql(dot)org> |
| Subject: | Re: WIP Incremental JSON Parser |
| Date: | 2024-04-09 16:26:49 |
| Message-ID: | CAOYmi+=JO+SR08s-U5o0tQ+JVcvsPSu85YY0ftSqS6gAi_Fyhw@mail.gmail.com |
| Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
| Thread: | |
| Lists: | pgsql-hackers |
On Tue, Apr 9, 2024 at 7:30 AM Andrew Dunstan <andrew(at)dunslane(dot)net> wrote:
> I think Michael's point was that if we carry the code we should test we
> can run it. The other possibility would be just to remove it. I can see
> arguments for both.
Hm. If it's not acceptable to carry this (as a worse-is-better smoke
test) without also running it during tests, then my personal vote
would be to tear it out and just have people write/contribute targeted
benchmarks when they end up working on performance. I don't think the
cost/benefit makes sense at that point.
--Jacob
| From | Date | Subject | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Next Message | Tom Lane | 2024-04-09 16:27:22 | Re: post-freeze damage control |
| Previous Message | Peter Geoghegan | 2024-04-09 16:12:36 | Re: post-freeze damage control |