| From: | Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us> |
|---|---|
| To: | Andres Freund <andres(at)anarazel(dot)de> |
| Cc: | Robert Haas <robertmhaas(at)gmail(dot)com>, Peter Eisentraut <peter(dot)eisentraut(at)2ndquadrant(dot)com>, Pg Hackers <pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org> |
| Subject: | Re: JIT compiling with LLVM v11 |
| Date: | 2018-03-13 19:12:59 |
| Message-ID: | 30020.1520968379@sss.pgh.pa.us |
| Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
| Thread: | |
| Lists: | pgsql-hackers |
Andres Freund <andres(at)anarazel(dot)de> writes:
> On 2018-03-13 14:36:44 -0400, Robert Haas wrote:
>> I realize that EXPLAIN (JIT OFF) may sound like it's intended to
>> disable JIT itself
> Yea, that's what I'm concerned about.
>> , but I think it's pretty clear that EXPLAIN (BUFFERS OFF) does not
>> disable the use of actual buffers, only the display of buffer-related
>> information.
> Hm.
FWIW, I agree with Robert's preference for just JIT here. The "info"
bit isn't conveying anything. And we've never had any EXPLAIN options
that actually change the behavior of the explained command, only ones
that change the amount of info displayed. I don't see why we'd
consider JIT an exception to that.
regards, tom lane
| From | Date | Subject | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Next Message | Peter Eisentraut | 2018-03-13 19:25:39 | Re: [HACKERS] taking stdbool.h into use |
| Previous Message | Jeff Janes | 2018-03-13 19:07:59 | neqjoinsel versus "refresh materialized view concurrently" |