Re: JIT documentation fixes

From: Peter Geoghegan <pg(at)bowt(dot)ie>
To: Daniel Gustafsson <daniel(at)yesql(dot)se>
Cc: Postgres hackers <pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org>
Subject: Re: JIT documentation fixes
Date: 2018-06-09 17:05:01
Message-ID: CAH2-WznVBx2KZc3iC7=5nbEmhacY6T2MdJGviDRGcX_VCfgR7Q@mail.gmail.com
Views: Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email
Thread:
Lists: pgsql-hackers

On Thu, May 31, 2018 at 11:50 AM, Daniel Gustafsson <daniel(at)yesql(dot)se> wrote:
> When reading the JIT developer documentation, a few small wordsmithing issues
> stood out (although this may be due to me not being a native english speaker).
> The attached patch fixes these to what I think the sentences inteded to say.

Committed with a few adjustments.

I found that "an SQL..." was about as common as "a SQL..." in the
documentation. Either can be correct -- it depends on how you
pronounce "SQL". I didn't see any point in those changes, perhaps
because I always say "S-Q-L".

I'm also pretty sure that Andres did in fact mean "...even for faster
queries", since an LRU cache of JIT functions should be particularly
useful for OLTP queries that are already individually fast enough to
make per-execution JIT compilation overhead prohibitively expensive.
That change was also left out. If I'm mistaken in how I interpreted
the sentence, then Andres should follow up.

Thanks
--
Peter Geoghegan

In response to

Responses

Browse pgsql-hackers by date

  From Date Subject
Next Message Daniel Gustafsson 2018-06-09 17:40:22 Re: JIT documentation fixes
Previous Message Tom Lane 2018-06-09 16:48:24 Re: Internal error XX000 with enable_partition_pruning=on, pg 11 beta1 on Debian