| From: | Michael Banck <mbanck(at)gmx(dot)net> |
|---|---|
| To: | Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us> |
| Cc: | James Coleman <jtc331(at)gmail(dot)com>, Tomas Vondra <tomas(dot)vondra(at)enterprisedb(dot)com>, David Rowley <dgrowleyml(at)gmail(dot)com>, pgsql-hackers <pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org>, David Pirotte <dpirotte(at)gmail(dot)com> |
| Subject: | Re: Stampede of the JIT compilers |
| Date: | 2023-06-25 09:10:00 |
| Message-ID: | 64980469.1c0a0220.9a5e.f18d@mx.google.com |
| Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
| Thread: | |
| Lists: | pgsql-hackers |
Hi,
On Sat, Jun 24, 2023 at 01:54:53PM -0400, Tom Lane wrote:
> I don't know whether raising the default would be enough to fix that
> in a nice way, and I certainly don't pretend to have a specific value
> to offer. But it's undeniable that we have a serious problem here,
> to the point where JIT is a net negative for quite a few people.
Some further data: to my knowledge, most major managed postgres
providers disable jit for their users. Azure certainly does, but I don't
have a Google Cloud SQL or RDS instance running right to verify their
settings. I do seem to remember that they did as well though, at least a
while back.
Michael
| From | Date | Subject | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Next Message | Joel Jacobson | 2023-06-25 09:42:52 | Re: Do we want a hashset type? |
| Previous Message | Richard Guo | 2023-06-25 08:18:33 | Re: Incremental sort for access method with ordered scan support (amcanorderbyop) |