From: Tom Lane <tgl@sss.pgh.pa.us>
To: David Rowley <dgrowleyml@gmail.com>
cc: Justin Pryzby <pryzby@telsasoft.com>,
        PostgreSQL-development <pgsql-hackers@postgresql.org>,
        Andres Freund <andres@anarazel.de>
Subject: Re: jit and explain nontext
In-reply-to: 
 <CAApHDvpPt=iN=f5gHQSCA073mp5KO46gsEZFgTWc4xbzKshb9g@mail.gmail.com>
References: <20201014193859.GS9241@telsasoft.com>
 <CAApHDvpPt=iN=f5gHQSCA073mp5KO46gsEZFgTWc4xbzKshb9g@mail.gmail.com>
Comments: In-reply-to David Rowley <dgrowleyml@gmail.com>
	message dated "Thu, 15 Oct 2020 14:02:15 +1300"
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"
Content-ID: <3643529.1602724513.1@sss.pgh.pa.us>
Date: Wed, 14 Oct 2020 21:15:13 -0400
Message-ID: <3643530.1602724513@sss.pgh.pa.us>
Precedence: bulk

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