From: Justin Pryzby <pryzby@telsasoft.com>
To: David Rowley <dgrowleyml@gmail.com>
Cc: Tom Lane <tgl@sss.pgh.pa.us>
Cc: PostgreSQL-development <pgsql-hackers@postgresql.org>
Cc: Andres Freund <andres@anarazel.de>
Subject: Re: jit and explain nontext
Date: Wed, 14 Oct 2020 20:43:26 -0500
Message-ID: <20201015014326.GU9241@telsasoft.com> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <CAApHDvqK2HAm-BWxgo7=7GG5xERuECwgny+Sxh3iLfXmhR_yBQ@mail.gmail.com>
References: <20201014193859.GS9241@telsasoft.com>
<CAApHDvpPt=iN=f5gHQSCA073mp5KO46gsEZFgTWc4xbzKshb9g@mail.gmail.com>
<3643530.1602724513@sss.pgh.pa.us>
<CAApHDvqK2HAm-BWxgo7=7GG5xERuECwgny+Sxh3iLfXmhR_yBQ@mail.gmail.com>
On Thu, Oct 15, 2020 at 02:23:01PM +1300, David Rowley wrote:
> On Thu, 15 Oct 2020 at 14:15, Tom Lane <tgl@sss.pgh.pa.us> wrote:
> > David Rowley <dgrowleyml@gmail.com> writes:
> > > Just for some reference. Some wisdom was shared in [1], which made a
> > > lot of sense to me.
> > > If we apply that, then we just need to decide if displaying any jit
> > > related fields without any jitted expressions is relevant.
> >
> > Hmm, I dunno if my opinion counts as "wisdom", but what I was arguing for
> > there was that we should print stuff if it's potentially invoked by a
> > run-time decision, but not if it was excluded at plan time. I'm not
> > totally clear on whether jitting decisions are fixed by the plan tree
> > (including its cost values) or if the executor can make different
> > decisions in different executions of the identical plan tree.
> > If the latter, then I agree with Justin that this is a bug.
>
> As far as I know, the only exception where the executor overwrites the
> planner's decision is in nodeValuesscan.c where it turns jit off
> because each VALUES will get evaluated just once, which would be a
> waste of effort to JIT.
>
> Apart from that the choice is baked in by the planner and set in
> PlannedStmt.jitfFlags.
What about the GUCs themselves ?
They can change after planning, which means a given execution of a plan might
or might not use jit.
--
Justin
Reply instructions:
You may reply publicly to this message via plain-text email
using any one of the following methods:
* Reply to all the recipients using the --to and --cc options:
reply via email
To: pgsql-hackers@postgresql.org
Cc: pryzby@telsasoft.com, dgrowleyml@gmail.com, tgl@sss.pgh.pa.us, andres@anarazel.de
Subject: Re: jit and explain nontext
In-Reply-To: <20201015014326.GU9241@telsasoft.com>
* Save the following mbox file, import it into your mail client,
and reply-to-all from there: mbox
This inbox is served by DDX for PostgreSQL; see mirroring instructions
for how to clone and mirror all data and code used for this inbox