| 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 13:45:11 |
| Message-ID: | CAOYmi+=MxQ_E9EfmNwUS4z3hJvCjXXz5wBTad5O++zwcY45NuQ@mail.gmail.com |
| Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
| Thread: | |
| Lists: | pgsql-hackers |
On Tue, Apr 9, 2024 at 4:54 AM Andrew Dunstan <andrew(at)dunslane(dot)net> wrote:
> On 2024-04-09 Tu 01:23, Michael Paquier wrote:
> There is no direct check on test_json_parser_perf.c, either, only a
> custom rule in the Makefile without specifying something for meson.
> So it looks like you could do short execution check in a TAP test, at
> least.
>
> Not adding a test for that was deliberate - any sane test takes a while, and I didn't want to spend that much time on it every time someone runs "make check-world" or equivalent. However, adding a test to run it with a trivial number of iterations seems reasonable, so I'll add that. I'll also add a meson target for the binary.
Okay, but for what purpose? My understanding during review was that
this was a convenience utility for people who were actively hacking on
the code (and I used it for exactly that purpose a few months back, so
I didn't question that any further). Why does the farm need to spend
any time running it at all?
--Jacob
| From | Date | Subject | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Next Message | Tom Lane | 2024-04-09 13:46:10 | Re: IPC::Run::time[r|out] vs our TAP tests |
| Previous Message | Stefan Fercot | 2024-04-09 13:34:12 | Re: post-freeze damage control |