| From: | Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us> |
|---|---|
| To: | David Rowley <dgrowleyml(at)gmail(dot)com> |
| Cc: | Scott Ribe <scott_ribe(at)elevated-dev(dot)com>, Christoph Moench-Tegeder <cmt(at)burggraben(dot)net>, PostgreSQL General <pgsql-general(at)lists(dot)postgresql(dot)org> |
| Subject: | Re: is JIT available |
| Date: | 2020-07-28 03:33:44 |
| Message-ID: | 1153093.1595907224@sss.pgh.pa.us |
| Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
| Thread: | |
| Lists: | pgsql-general |
David Rowley <dgrowleyml(at)gmail(dot)com> writes:
> Maybe this would be better?
> "returns true if jit is enabled and JIT compilation is available in
> this session (see Chapter 31)."
The general, non-hacker meaning of "jit is enabled" would seem to
be pretty much what this function is already doing; and for that
matter, the same can be said for "JIT compilation is available".
We need something that's less tautological-looking. Maybe along
the lines of
"returns true if a JIT compiler extension is available and the
<varname>jit</varname> parameter is set to <literal>on</literal>;
when this is true, JIT compilation will be performed."
?
regards, tom lane
| From | Date | Subject | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Next Message | David Rowley | 2020-07-28 03:55:36 | Re: is JIT available |
| Previous Message | Ian Barwick | 2020-07-28 01:53:49 | Re: postgres stats on the new primary |