Re: JIT compiling with LLVM v9.0

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

In response to

Responses

Browse pgsql-hackers by date

  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