From: | Andres Freund <andres(at)anarazel(dot)de> |
---|---|
To: | Thomas Munro <thomas(dot)munro(at)enterprisedb(dot)com> |
Cc: | Robert Haas <robertmhaas(at)gmail(dot)com>, Jeff Davis <pgsql(at)j-davis(dot)com>, PostgreSQL-development <pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org> |
Subject: | Re: JIT compiling with LLVM v9.0 |
Date: | 2018-01-31 02:55:12 |
Message-ID: | 20180131025512.rif762nsiwmkf44b@alap3.anarazel.de |
Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
Thread: | |
Lists: | pgsql-hackers |
Hi,
On 2018-01-31 15:48:09 +1300, Thomas Munro wrote:
> On Wed, Jan 31, 2018 at 3:05 PM, Andres Freund <andres(at)anarazel(dot)de> wrote:
> > I'm not quite sure I understand. You mean have it display whether
> > available? I think my plan is to "just" set jit_expressions=on (or
> > whatever we're going to name it) fail if the prerequisites aren't
> > available. I personally don't think this should be enabled by default,
> > definitely not in the first release.
>
> I assumed (incorrectly) that you wanted it to default to on if
> available, so I was suggesting making it obvious to end users if
> they've accidentally forgotten to install -jit. If it's not enabled
> until you actually ask for it and trying to enable it when it's not
> installed barfs, then that seems sensible.
I'm open to changing my mind on it, but it seems a bit weird that a
feature that relies on a shlib being installed magically turns itself on
if avaible. And leaving that angle aside, ISTM, that it's a complex
enough feature that it should be opt-in the first release... Think we
roughly did that right for e.g. parallellism.
Greetings,
Andres Freund
From | Date | Subject | |
---|---|---|---|
Next Message | Amit Kapila | 2018-01-31 03:10:06 | Re: Wait for parallel workers to attach |
Previous Message | Thomas Munro | 2018-01-31 02:48:09 | Re: JIT compiling with LLVM v9.0 |