Horton

Thread

Commits

  1. Fix a few typos in JIT comments and README

  1. Fix a couple of typos in JIT

    David Rowley <dgrowleyml@gmail.com> — 2020-08-20T10:19:49Z

    Hi,

I was just looking over the JIT code and noticed a few comment and
documentation typos.  The attached fixes them.

I'll push this in my UTC+12 morning if nobody objects to any of the
changes before then.

Unsure if it'll be worth backpatching or not.

David

  2. Re: Fix a couple of typos in JIT

    Abhijit Menon-Sen <ams@toroid.org> — 2020-08-20T10:29:26Z

    At 2020-08-20 22:19:49 +1200, dgrowleyml@gmail.com wrote:
>
> I was just looking over the JIT code and noticed a few comment and
> documentation typos.  The attached fixes them.

The first change does not seem to be correct:

-That this is done at query execution time, possibly even only in cases
-where the relevant task is done a number of times, makes it JIT,
-rather than ahead-of-time (AOT). Given the way JIT compilation is used
-in PostgreSQL, the lines between interpretation, AOT and JIT are
-somewhat blurry.
+This is done at query execution time, possibly even only in cases where
+the relevant task is done a number of times, makes it JIT, rather than
+ahead-of-time (AOT). Given the way JIT compilation is used in PostgreSQL,
+the lines between interpretation, AOT and JIT are somewhat blurry.

The original sentence may not be the most shining example of
sentence-ry, but it is correct, and removing the "That" breaks it.

-- Abhijit

  3. Re: Fix a couple of typos in JIT

    David Rowley <dgrowleyml@gmail.com> — 2020-08-20T10:51:41Z

    On Thu, 20 Aug 2020 at 22:29, Abhijit Menon-Sen <ams@toroid.org> wrote:
>
> At 2020-08-20 22:19:49 +1200, dgrowleyml@gmail.com wrote:
> >
> > I was just looking over the JIT code and noticed a few comment and
> > documentation typos.  The attached fixes them.
>
> The first change does not seem to be correct:
>
> -That this is done at query execution time, possibly even only in cases
> -where the relevant task is done a number of times, makes it JIT,
> -rather than ahead-of-time (AOT). Given the way JIT compilation is used
> -in PostgreSQL, the lines between interpretation, AOT and JIT are
> -somewhat blurry.
> +This is done at query execution time, possibly even only in cases where
> +the relevant task is done a number of times, makes it JIT, rather than
> +ahead-of-time (AOT). Given the way JIT compilation is used in PostgreSQL,
> +the lines between interpretation, AOT and JIT are somewhat blurry.
>
> The original sentence may not be the most shining example of
> sentence-ry, but it is correct, and removing the "That" breaks it.

Oh, I see. I missed that. Perhaps it would be better changed to "The
fact that this"

David

  4. Re: Fix a couple of typos in JIT

    Abhijit Menon-Sen <ams@toroid.org> — 2020-08-20T11:26:53Z

    At 2020-08-20 22:51:41 +1200, dgrowleyml@gmail.com wrote:
>
> > +This is done at query execution time, possibly even only in cases where
> > +the relevant task is done a number of times, makes it JIT, rather than
> > +ahead-of-time (AOT). Given the way JIT compilation is used in PostgreSQL,
> > +the lines between interpretation, AOT and JIT are somewhat blurry.
> > […]
> 
> Oh, I see. I missed that. Perhaps it would be better changed to "The
> fact that this"

Or maybe even:

    This is JIT, rather than ahead-of-time (AOT) compilation, because it
    is done at query execution time, and perhaps only in cases where the
    relevant task is repeated a number of times. Given the way …

-- Abhijit

  5. Re: Fix a couple of typos in JIT

    Andres Freund <andres@anarazel.de> — 2020-08-20T14:25:52Z

    Hi,

On 2020-08-20 15:59:26 +0530, Abhijit Menon-Sen wrote:
> The original sentence may not be the most shining example of
> sentence-ry, but it is correct, and removing the "That" breaks it.

That made me laugh ;)

David, sounds good, after adapting to Abhijit's concerns.

Greetings,

Andres Freund

  6. Re: Fix a couple of typos in JIT

    David Rowley <dgrowleyml@gmail.com> — 2020-08-20T21:38:01Z

    On Fri, 21 Aug 2020 at 02:25, Andres Freund <andres@anarazel.de> wrote:
> David, sounds good, after adapting to Abhijit's concerns.

Thank you both for having a look. Now pushed.

David