Happy to contribute to that decision :-)
On Fri, Oct 17, 2014 at 11:35 AM, Tom Lane <t...@sss.pgh.pa.us> wrote: > Andres Freund <and...@2ndquadrant.com> writes: >> On 2014-10-17 13:12:27 -0400, Tom Lane wrote: >>> Well, that's pretty much cheating: it's too hard to disentangle what's >>> coming from JIT vs what's coming from using a different accumulator >>> datatype. If we wanted to depend on having int128 available we could >>> get that speedup with a couple hours' work. > >> I think doing that when configure detects int128 would make a great deal >> of sense. > > Yeah, I was wondering about that myself: use int128 if available, > else fall back on existing code path. > > regards, tom lane -- Sent via pgsql-hackers mailing list (pgsql-hackers@postgresql.org) To make changes to your subscription: http://www.postgresql.org/mailpref/pgsql-hackers
