Re: jit and explain nontext

From: Justin Pryzby <pryzby(at)telsasoft(dot)com>
To: Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us>
Cc: Peter Eisentraut <peter(dot)eisentraut(at)enterprisedb(dot)com>, David Rowley <dgrowleyml(at)gmail(dot)com>, pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org, Andres Freund <andres(at)anarazel(dot)de>
Subject: Re: jit and explain nontext
Date: 2021-01-15 20:25:46
Message-ID: 20210115202546.GA8560@telsasoft.com
Views: Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email
Thread:
Lists: pgsql-hackers

On Fri, Jan 15, 2021 at 02:53:49PM -0500, Tom Lane wrote:
> On balance I agree with Peter's opinion that this isn't worth
> changing. I would be for the patch if the executor had a little
> more freedom of action, but as things stand there's not much
> freedom there.

Thanks for looking
CF: withdrawn.

--
Justin

In response to

Browse pgsql-hackers by date

  From Date Subject
Next Message Bruce Momjian 2021-01-15 20:49:26 Re: Key management with tests
Previous Message Tom Lane 2021-01-15 20:22:03 Re: Improve pg_dump dumping publication tables