From: | Andres Freund <andres(at)anarazel(dot)de> |
---|---|
To: | Peter Eisentraut <peter(dot)eisentraut(at)2ndquadrant(dot)com> |
Cc: | Noah Misch <noah(at)leadboat(dot)com>, pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org |
Subject: | Re: JIT compiling with LLVM v12 |
Date: | 2018-08-22 14:54:11 |
Message-ID: | 20180822145411.7ggj65g5flufwrqs@alap3.anarazel.de |
Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
Thread: | |
Lists: | pgsql-hackers |
Hi,
On 2018-08-22 16:36:00 +0200, Peter Eisentraut wrote:
> I'm suspicious that we haven't had much feedback about this. We've
> heard of one or two cases where LLVM broke a query outright, and that
> was fixed and that was a good result. But we haven't heard anything
> about performance regressions. Surely there must be some. There hasn't
> been any discussion or further analysis of the default cost settings
> either. I feel that we don't have enough information.
Yea. I don't think we'll get really good feedback before production
unfortunately :(
> I would like, however, that we make a decision one way or the other
> before the next beta. I've been handwaving a bit to users not to rely
> on the current betas for performance testing because the defaults might
> change later. That's bad either way.
I don't see particularly much benefit in deciding before beta,
personally. What's making you think it'd be important to decide before?
Pretty fundamentally, it'll be a setting you don't know is effectively
on, for the forseeable future anyway?
Greetings,
Andres Freund
From | Date | Subject | |
---|---|---|---|
Next Message | Peter Eisentraut | 2018-08-22 14:56:15 | Re: Windows vs C99 (was Re: C99 compliance for src/port/snprintf.c) |
Previous Message | Alvaro Herrera | 2018-08-22 14:44:40 | Re: BUG #15346: Replica fails to start after the crash |