pgsql-hackers
❮
Change default of jit to off
- Jump to comment-1Jelte Fennema-Nio<postgres@jeltef.nl>Jan 30, 2026, 11:28 AM UTC(forked off from "Add missing JIT inline pass for llvm>=17")
On Mon, 19 Jan 2026 at 11:53, Pierre Ducroquet <p.psql@pinaraf.info> wrote:
On Friday, January 16, 2026 10:29:59 AM Central European Standard Time Michael
Banck wrote:Hi,
On Thu, Jan 15, 2026 at 12:26:23PM +0100, Álvaro Herrera wrote:On 2026-Jan-15, Andreas Karlsson wrote:
Great find! Sadly shows how little people actually use JIT.
I disagree. Given that JIT is enabled by default, I think lots of
people use it.
Well, not sure about that - all of the three major hyperscalers disable
JIT in their managed Postgres offerings (or at least used to when I last
checked), and those are a major chunk of usage these days. Also, both
the RPM and (since recently) the Debian/Ubuntu community packages have
factored out the LLVM/jit part into their own packages and AFAIK they do
not get installed by default.
So while the GUC is on by default, a lot of users might not use JIT
these days and not know either way.What they don't do, is realize that things are slower
than they could be -- much less try to figure out why.
Right.
+1 on disabling jit by default. At the FOSDEM Postgres developer meeting
People have also seen blog articles saying «JIT is bad, switch it off» that are
right if you are in the wrong use cases for JIT. Which, to be fair, is not
easy to figure out.
consensus was hugely in favor of changing the default. So attached is a
trivial patch that does this.- Jump to comment-1Bernd Helmle<mailings@oopsware.de>Jan 30, 2026, 1:27 PM UTCAm Freitag, dem 30.01.2026 um 12:28 +0100 schrieb Jelte Fennema-Nio:
People have also seen blog articles saying «JIT is bad, switch it
off» that are
right if you are in the wrong use cases for JIT. Which, to be fair,
is not
easy to figure out.
+1, let's turn it off. I've seen many people hit by JIT and someone who
+1 on disabling jit by default. At the FOSDEM Postgres developer
meeting
consensus was hugely in favor of changing the default. So attached is
a
trivial patch that does this.
has the use case for it can easily turn it on again.
--
Thanks,Bernd- Jump to comment-1wenhui qiu<qiuwenhuifx@gmail.com>Jan 31, 2026, 3:03 AM UTCAgree +1,Open it again if necessary.
On Fri, 30 Jan 2026 at 21:27, Bernd Helmle <mailings@oopsware.de> wrote:Am Freitag, dem 30.01.2026 um 12:28 +0100 schrieb Jelte Fennema-Nio:
People have also seen blog articles saying «JIT is bad, switch it
off» that are
right if you are in the wrong use cases for JIT. Which, to be fair,
is not
easy to figure out.
+1 on disabling jit by default. At the FOSDEM Postgres developer
meeting
consensus was hugely in favor of changing the default. So attached is
a
trivial patch that does this.
+1, let's turn it off. I've seen many people hit by JIT and someone who
has the use case for it can easily turn it on again.
--
Thanks,
Bernd
- Jump to comment-1Jim Jones<jim.jones@uni-muenster.de>Jan 30, 2026, 11:57 AM UTCOn 30/01/2026 12:28, Jelte Fennema-Nio wrote:
+1 on disabling jit by default. At the FOSDEM Postgres developer meeting
+1 on changing the default.
consensus was hugely in favor of changing the default. So attached is a
trivial patch that does this.
It's bitten me on more than one occasion.
Best, Jim- Jump to comment-1Laurenz Albe<laurenz.albe@cybertec.at>Jan 30, 2026, 1:17 PM UTCOn Fri, 2026-01-30 at 12:57 +0100, Jim Jones wrote:
On 30/01/2026 12:28, Jelte Fennema-Nio wrote:
+1 on disabling jit by default. At the FOSDEM Postgres developer meeting
consensus was hugely in favor of changing the default. So attached is a
trivial patch that does this.
+1, same here.
+1 on changing the default.
It's bitten me on more than one occasion.
Yours,
Laurenz Albe