Re: Defaulting to jit=on/off for v11

From: Andres Freund <andres(at)anarazel(dot)de>
To: pgsql-hackers(at)lists(dot)postgresql(dot)org,Andrew Dunstan <andrew(dot)dunstan(at)2ndquadrant(dot)com>,Peter Geoghegan <pg(at)bowt(dot)ie>,Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us>
Cc: PostgreSQL Hackers <pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org>
Subject: Re: Defaulting to jit=on/off for v11
Date: 2018-09-15 18:07:22
Message-ID: 72D909B6-28B1-4E12-B358-C6F2C65E86C8@anarazel.de
Views: Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email
Thread:
Lists: pgsql-hackers

On September 15, 2018 8:26:17 AM MDT, Andrew Dunstan <andrew(dot)dunstan(at)2ndquadrant(dot)com> wrote:
>
>
>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.

Cool, sounds we have agreement. I'll try to come up with a patch. I'm [un]fortunately hiking till Wednesday, so I won't have an easy time to push a patch. I probably could push something tomorrow, but I'd have a hard time cleaning up if needed. Does anybody feel we should have that in Mondays release?

Andres

Andres
--
Sent from my Android device with K-9 Mail. Please excuse my brevity.

In response to

Responses

Browse pgsql-hackers by date

  From Date Subject
Next Message Tom Lane 2018-09-15 18:11:09 Re: Code of Conduct plan
Previous Message Martin Mueller 2018-09-15 16:37:41 Re: Code of Conduct plan