MIME-Version: 1.0
References: <CALNXOfqDr5jVRZHThyXyNftDuezjxOJB1mqw=4x1T8YBibi6uw@mail.gmail.com>
 <CAG1ps1w61XD1LxUf3EBCZ=VR3S_orRj_dk6cxmO5KusBVyrgMg@mail.gmail.com>
 <CAAvG1pChk3W9MWkK-_JPyUdThSoJhv4MueH5i8cZS2T_HUP5dA@mail.gmail.com>
 <CAG1ps1xvnTZceKK24OUfMKLPvDP2vjT-d+F2AOCWbw_v3KeEgg@mail.gmail.com>
 <2962669.1724722813@sss.pgh.pa.us> <CAApHDvpRxyw1G2HVkA=PM5Uqh59moOFqPXyMTsEDUadKo2fQTA@mail.gmail.com>
 <fa70f9fbd7a0bbfb78316dc8ac2ffddb@postgresql.org>
In-Reply-To: <fa70f9fbd7a0bbfb78316dc8ac2ffddb@postgresql.org>
From: David Rowley <dgrowleyml@gmail.com>
Date: Tue, 27 Aug 2024 22:14:07 +1200
Message-ID: <CAApHDvr6igx9SPQs3n_K5WwvTdYwhZ1LzP6qOfiGFNbUHXOCyQ@mail.gmail.com>
Subject: Re: Significant Execution Time Difference Between PG13.14 and PG16.4
 for Query on information_schema Tables.
To: Justin Clift <justin@postgresql.org>
Cc: Tom Lane <tgl@sss.pgh.pa.us>, nikhil raj <nikhilraj474@gmail.com>, 
	"pgsql-generallists.postgresql.org" <pgsql-general@lists.postgresql.org>, 
	NIKITA PATEL <patelnikita1411@gmail.com>, Patel Khushbu <patelkhushbu2067@gmail.com>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="UTF-8"
Archived-At: <https://www.postgresql.org/message-id/CAApHDvr6igx9SPQs3n_K5WwvTdYwhZ1LzP6qOfiGFNbUHXOCyQ%40mail.gmail.com>
Precedence: bulk

On Tue, 27 Aug 2024 at 18:00, Justin Clift <justin@postgresql.org> wrote:
> As a general thought, seeing that this might be an actual problem
> should some kind of automated testing be added that checks for
> performance regressions like this?

We normally try to catch these sorts of things with regression tests.
Of course, that requires having a test that would catch a particular
problem, which we don't seem to have for this particular case.  A
performance test would also require testing a particular scenario, so
I don't see why that's better.  A regression test is better suited as
there's no middle ground between pass and fail.

David