Happy to contribute to that decision :-)
On Fri, Oct 17, 2014 at 11:35 AM, Tom Lane <tgl@sss.pgh.pa.us> wrote:
> Andres Freund <andres@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