Fix a couple of typos in JIT

Started by David Rowleyover 5 years ago6 messageshackers
Jump to latest
#1David Rowley
dgrowleyml@gmail.com

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

Attachments:

fix_a_few_jit_typos.patchapplication/octet-stream; name=fix_a_few_jit_typos.patchDownload+7-8
#2Abhijit Menon-Sen
ams@2ndQuadrant.com
In reply to: David Rowley (#1)
Re: Fix a couple of typos in JIT

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

#3David Rowley
dgrowleyml@gmail.com
In reply to: Abhijit Menon-Sen (#2)
Re: Fix a couple of typos in JIT

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

#4Abhijit Menon-Sen
ams@2ndQuadrant.com
In reply to: David Rowley (#3)
Re: Fix a couple of typos in JIT

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

#5Andres Freund
andres@anarazel.de
In reply to: Abhijit Menon-Sen (#2)
Re: Fix a couple of typos in JIT

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

#6David Rowley
dgrowleyml@gmail.com
In reply to: Andres Freund (#5)
Re: Fix a couple of typos in JIT

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