Re: WIP Incremental JSON Parser
От | Andrew Dunstan |
---|---|
Тема | Re: WIP Incremental JSON Parser |
Дата | |
Msg-id | 16fe5da6-d3b4-4d78-9d98-b4badd8a001d@dunslane.net обсуждение исходный текст |
Ответ на | Re: WIP Incremental JSON Parser (Jacob Champion <jacob.champion@enterprisedb.com>) |
Ответы |
Re: WIP Incremental JSON Parser
|
Список | pgsql-hackers |
On 2024-04-09 Tu 09:45, Jacob Champion wrote: > On Tue, Apr 9, 2024 at 4:54 AM Andrew Dunstan <andrew@dunslane.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 onit every time someone runs "make check-world" or equivalent. However, adding a test to run it with a trivial number ofiterations 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? > 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. cheers andrew -- Andrew Dunstan EDB: https://www.enterprisedb.com
В списке pgsql-hackers по дате отправления: