On Thu, Mar 29, 2018 at 3:00 PM, Stephen Frost <sfr...@snowman.net> wrote: > What we've done elsewhere when there's been similar jargon is to say > something along the lines of: > > "compiling of routines (also known as Just-In-Time or JIT compilation)"
That strike me as roughly analogous to saying: "hiding rows users don't have permission to see (also known as row-level security)" IOW, it's just substituting a generic description for a term of art that has a real meaning. I can't see that as an improvement. It would be possible to compile routines without involving JIT; as I mentioned earlier, you could compile them to bytecode. Or, you could compile them to machine code at definition time as, I am told by Thomas, some database products used to do, I think by generating C code and then shelling out to "cc". Just-in-time compilation clearly conveys that we are generating machine code at runtime; "compiling of routines" does not. Besides, if we did that, what are we going to call the GUCs? compiling_of_routines_above_cost? compiling_of_routines_provider = 'llvmjit'? Ugh. This technique has bene called JIT since about 1983, and is well-known under that name, mostly because of Java. Calling it some made-up name we create ourselves is not going to make this more comprehensible to users. -- Robert Haas EnterpriseDB: http://www.enterprisedb.com The Enterprise PostgreSQL Company
