| From: | Michael Paquier <michael(at)paquier(dot)xyz> |
|---|---|
| To: | Jacob Champion <jacob(dot)champion(at)enterprisedb(dot)com> |
| Cc: | Andrew Dunstan <andrew(at)dunslane(dot)net>, 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: | 2024-04-18 05:25:16 |
| Message-ID: | ZiCuvG5K5ERQRtyr@paquier.xyz |
| Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
| Thread: | |
| Lists: | pgsql-hackers |
On Tue, Apr 09, 2024 at 09:26:49AM -0700, Jacob Champion wrote:
> 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.
And you may catch up a couple of bugs while on it. In my experience,
things with custom makefile and/or meson rules tend to rot easily
because everybody forgets about them. There are a few of them in the
tree that could be ripped off, as well..
--
Michael
| From | Date | Subject | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Next Message | Amit Kapila | 2024-04-18 05:52:24 | Re: Disallow changing slot's failover option in transaction block |
| Previous Message | Imseih (AWS), Sami | 2024-04-18 05:05:03 | Re: allow changing autovacuum_max_workers without restarting |