| Commit message (Collapse) | Author | Age |
|
|
|
| |
Backpatch-through: 13
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
| |
Remove support for LLVM versions 10-13. The default on all non-EOL'd
OSes represented in our build farm will be at least LLVM 14 when
PostgreSQL 18 ships.
Author: Thomas Munro <thomas.munro@gmail.com>
Reviewed-by: Peter Eisentraut <peter@eisentraut.org>
Discussion: https://postgr.es/m/CA%2BhUKGLhNs5geZaVNj2EJ79Dx9W8fyWUU3HxcpZy55sMGcY%3DiA%40mail.gmail.com
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
| |
Remove support for older LLVM versions. The default on common software
distributions will be at least LLVM 10 when PostgreSQL 17 ships.
Reviewed-by: Peter Eisentraut <peter@eisentraut.org>
Discussion: https://postgr.es/m/CA%2BhUKGLhNs5geZaVNj2EJ79Dx9W8fyWUU3HxcpZy55sMGcY%3DiA%40mail.gmail.com
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
| |
Reported-by: Michael Paquier
Discussion: https://postgr.es/m/ZZKTDPxBBMt3C0J9@paquier.xyz
Backpatch-through: 12
|
|
|
|
| |
Backpatch-through: 11
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
| |
Tested with LLVM 11, LLVM 13 and LLVM's main branch at commit
8d8fce87bbd5. There are still some deprecation warnings that will need
to be sorted out, but this may be enough to turn "seawasp" green again.
Like commit e6a76002, done on master only for now.
Reviewed-by: Andres Freund <andres@anarazel.de>
Discussion: https://postgr.es/m/CA%2BhUKG%2B3Ac3He9_SpJcxeiiVknbcES1tbZEkH9sRBdJFGj8K5Q%40mail.gmail.com
|
|
|
|
| |
Backpatch-through: 10
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
| |
One of the changes impacts the documentation, so backpatch.
Author: Peter Smith
Discussion: https://postgr.es/m/CAHut+Pu6+c+r3mY24VT7u+H+E_s6vMr5OdRiZ8NT3EOa-E5Lmw@mail.gmail.com
Backpatch-through: 14
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
| |
If an allocation failed within LLVM it is not safe to call back into LLVM as
LLVM is not generally safe against exceptions / stack-unwinding. Thus errors
while in LLVM code are promoted to FATAL. However llvm_shutdown() did call
back into LLVM even in such cases, while llvm_release_context() was careful
not to do so.
We cannot generally skip shutting down LLVM, as that can break profiling. But
it's OK to do so if there was an error from within LLVM.
Reported-By: Jelte Fennema <Jelte.Fennema@microsoft.com>
Author: Andres Freund <andres@anarazel.de>
Author: Justin Pryzby <pryzby@telsasoft.com>
Discussion: https://postgr.es/m/AM5PR83MB0178C52CCA0A8DEA0207DC14F7FF9@AM5PR83MB0178.EURPRD83.prod.outlook.com
Backpatch: 11-, where jit was introduced
|
|
|
|
| |
Backpatch-through: 9.5
|
|
|
|
| |
Backpatch-through: update all files in master, backpatch legal files through 9.4
|
|
|
|
|
|
| |
Author: Amit Langote
Discussion: https://postgr.es/m/9a54dcef-c799-ce89-2e47-0a7fc12d5fc2@lab.ntt.co.jp
Backpatch: 11-, where llvm was introduced.
|
|
|
|
| |
Backpatch-through: certain files through 9.4
|
|
|
|
| |
Author: Thomas Munro
|
|
This commit introduces:
1) JIT provider abstraction, which allows JIT functionality to be
implemented in separate shared libraries. That's desirable because
it allows to install JIT support as a separate package, and because
it allows experimentation with different forms of JITing.
2) JITContexts which can be, using functions introduced in follow up
commits, used to emit JITed functions, and have them be cleaned up
on error.
3) The outline of a LLVM JIT provider, which will be fleshed out in
subsequent commits.
Documentation for GUCs added, and for JIT in general, will be added in
later commits.
Author: Andres Freund, with architectural input from Jeff Davis
Discussion: https://postgr.es/m/20170901064131.tazjxwus3k2w3ybh@alap3.anarazel.de
|