On Tue, Apr 9, 2024 at 7:30 AM Andrew Dunstan <and...@dunslane.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
