On Tue, 2005-10-11 at 18:45 +0200, Peter Eisentraut wrote:
> Tom Lane wrote:
> > This seems pretty unworkable from a packaging standpoint. Even if
> > you teach autoconf how to tell which model it's running on, there's
> > no guarantee that the resulting executables will be used on that same
> > machine.
>
> A number of packages in the video area (and perhaps others) do compile
> "sub-architecture" specific variants. This could be done for
> PostgreSQL, but you'd probably need to show some pretty convincing
> performance numbers before people start the packaging effort.
I completely agree, just note that we already have some cases where
convincing performance numbers exist.
Tom is suggesting having different behaviour for x86 and x86_64. The x86
will still run on x86_64 architecture would it not? So we'll have two
binaries for each OS, yes?
In general, where we do find a clear difference, we should at very least
identify/record which variant the binary is most suitable for. At best
we could produce different executables, but I understand the packaging
effort required to do that.
Best Regards, Simon Riggs