| From: | John Naylor <jcnaylor(at)gmail(dot)com> |
|---|---|
| To: | Alvaro Herrera <alvherre(at)alvh(dot)no-ip(dot)org> |
| Cc: | Simon Riggs <simon(at)2ndquadrant(dot)com>, Andres Freund <andres(at)anarazel(dot)de>, pgsql-hackers(at)lists(dot)postgresql(dot)org |
| Subject: | Re: pgsql: Add documentation for the JIT feature. |
| Date: | 2018-03-29 13:33:09 |
| Message-ID: | CAJVSVGW3H6C6XnbeA_x2+CPazfd-LXRFps5+4oxPGNdh1eUHHQ@mail.gmail.com |
| Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
| Thread: | |
| Lists: | pgsql-committers pgsql-hackers |
> I agree. In some email threads Andres has been using "JIT" as a verb,
> too, such as "JITing expressions" and such; that's a bit shocking, in a
> way. Honestly I don't care in a pgsql-hackers thread, I mean we all
> understand what it means, but in user-facing docs and things we should
> use complete words, "JIT-compile", "JIT-compilation", "JIT-compiling"
> and so on.
Earlier today, I did some web searches to determine how people spell
"JITed" (Andres' spelling), and also found JITted, JIT-ed, JIT'd, and
jitted. No one agrees on that, but it seems very common to use "JIT"
as a verb. See the LLVM docs:
https://llvm.org/docs/DebuggingJITedCode.html
-John Naylor
| From | Date | Subject | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Next Message | Teodor Sigaev | 2018-03-29 13:35:20 | pgsql: Add casts from jsonb |
| Previous Message | Alvaro Herrera | 2018-03-29 12:59:55 | Re: pgsql: Add documentation for the JIT feature. |
| From | Date | Subject | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Next Message | Teodor Sigaev | 2018-03-29 13:35:39 | Re: Cast jsonb to numeric, int, float, bool |
| Previous Message | Tom Lane | 2018-03-29 13:26:50 | Re: Parallel safety of binary_upgrade_create_empty_extension |