Re: [HACKERS] [PATCH] relocation truncated to fit: citus buildfailure on s390x

Поиск
Список
Период
Сортировка
От Robert Haas
Тема Re: [HACKERS] [PATCH] relocation truncated to fit: citus buildfailure on s390x
Дата
Msg-id CA+TgmoYk0eSy=wfiusUHsZvN+NF+R4RaoJic0y=Rz3ErKhwzyA@mail.gmail.com
обсуждение исходный текст
Ответ на Re: [HACKERS] [PATCH] relocation truncated to fit: citus build failure on s390x  (Tom Lane <tgl@sss.pgh.pa.us>)
Ответы Re: [HACKERS] [PATCH] relocation truncated to fit: citus build failure on s390x  (Tom Lane <tgl@sss.pgh.pa.us>)
Список pgsql-hackers
On Mon, May 29, 2017 at 3:45 PM, Tom Lane <tgl@sss.pgh.pa.us> wrote:
> I wonder what the overhead is of using -fPIC when -fpic would be
> sufficient.  Whatever it is, the proposed patch imposes it on every
> shlib or extension, to accommodate one single extension that isn't
> even one we ship.
>
> Maybe this is small enough to not be something we need to worry about,
> but I'm wondering if we should ask citus and other large .so's to set
> some additional make flag that would cue usage of -fPIC over -fpic.

Do we have an idea how to measure the increased overhead?  Just from
reading the description, I'm guessing that the increased cost would
happen when the extension calls back into core, but maybe that doesn't
happen often enough to worry about?

--
Robert Haas
EnterpriseDB: http://www.enterprisedb.com
The Enterprise PostgreSQL Company


В списке pgsql-hackers по дате отправления:

Предыдущее
От: Petr Jelinek
Дата:
Сообщение: Re: [HACKERS] Walsender timeouts and large transactions
Следующее
От: Amit Kapila
Дата:
Сообщение: Re: [HACKERS] Fix GetOldestXmin comment