From: Tom Lane <tgl@sss.pgh.pa.us>
To: David Rowley <dgrowleyml@gmail.com>
Cc: Justin Pryzby <pryzby@telsasoft.com>
Cc: PostgreSQL-development <pgsql-hackers@postgresql.org>
Cc: Andres Freund <andres@anarazel.de>
Subject: Re: jit and explain nontext
Date: Wed, 14 Oct 2020 21:15:13 -0400
Message-ID: <3643530.1602724513@sss.pgh.pa.us> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <CAApHDvpPt=iN=f5gHQSCA073mp5KO46gsEZFgTWc4xbzKshb9g@mail.gmail.com>
References: <20201014193859.GS9241@telsasoft.com>
<CAApHDvpPt=iN=f5gHQSCA073mp5KO46gsEZFgTWc4xbzKshb9g@mail.gmail.com>
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.
regards, tom lane
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: tgl@sss.pgh.pa.us, dgrowleyml@gmail.com, pryzby@telsasoft.com, andres@anarazel.de
Subject: Re: jit and explain nontext
In-Reply-To: <3643530.1602724513@sss.pgh.pa.us>
* 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