Re: Defaulting to jit=on/off for v11

From: Andrew Dunstan <andrew(dot)dunstan(at)2ndquadrant(dot)com>
To: Peter Geoghegan <pg(at)bowt(dot)ie>, Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us>
Cc: Andres Freund <andres(at)anarazel(dot)de>, PostgreSQL Hackers <pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org>
Subject: Re: Defaulting to jit=on/off for v11
Date: 2018-09-15 14:26:17
Message-ID: 27085549-4a13-55d0-59ac-e8b34d11e6d1@2ndQuadrant.com
Views: Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email
Thread:
Lists: pgsql-hackers

On 09/14/2018 08:18 PM, Peter Geoghegan wrote:
> On Fri, Sep 14, 2018 at 3:32 PM, Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us> wrote:
>> I'd go with #2, personally. It does seem that the costing needs work,
>> but it's not clear to me that we know what to change, so it's kinda
>> late to propose #3 for v11.
> +1. I also favor option #2.
>

+ about 0.8. I hope we do get some good field testing if it, though.

cheers

andrew

--
Andrew Dunstan https://www.2ndQuadrant.com
PostgreSQL Development, 24x7 Support, Remote DBA, Training & Services

In response to

Responses

Browse pgsql-hackers by date

  From Date Subject
Next Message Jonathan S. Katz 2018-09-15 15:06:04 Re: Postgres 11 release notes
Previous Message Fabien COELHO 2018-09-15 13:59:08 Re: PATCH: pgbench - option to build using ppoll() for larger connection counts