Re: WIP Incremental JSON Parser - Mailing list pgsql-hackers

From Andrew Dunstan
Subject Re: WIP Incremental JSON Parser
Date
Msg-id 16fe5da6-d3b4-4d78-9d98-b4badd8a001d@dunslane.net
Whole thread Raw
In response to Re: WIP Incremental JSON Parser  (Jacob Champion <jacob.champion@enterprisedb.com>)
Responses Re: WIP Incremental JSON Parser
List 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




pgsql-hackers by date:

Previous
From: Andrew Dunstan
Date:
Subject: Re: IPC::Run::time[r|out] vs our TAP tests
Next
From: Robert Haas
Date:
Subject: Re: Streaming relation data out of order