Sean Chittenden <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> I'm thinking about changing this from a beta port to a -devel port
> that I'll periodically update with snapshots. I'll turn on -O6 for
> the -devel port and -O2 for production for now. If I don't hear of
> any random bogons in the code I'll see if
On Tue, 10 Sep 2002, Lamar Owen wrote:
> I still remember when the Alpha port _required_ -O0. And it was documented
> that way, IIRC.
Good. It would also be very nice if, in situations like this, the
configure script could detect this and use -O0 when compiling on
the alpha.
> Compiling from s
On Tuesday 10 September 2002 09:31 pm, Curt Sampson wrote:
> On Wed, 11 Sep 2002, Peter Eisentraut wrote:
> > I disagree. Choosing the compiler options is exactly the job of the
> > installer, packager, or distributor.
> If there is one, yes.
If the enduser is directly compiling the source, the
On Wed, 11 Sep 2002, Peter Eisentraut wrote:
> I disagree. Choosing the compiler options is exactly the job of the
> installer, packager, or distributor.
If there is one, yes.
> I don't think we're doing anyone a service if we spread wild speculations
> about how risky certain compiler options
Neil Conway writes:
> Also, if -O3 *is* a good compiler option, I dislike the idea of
> enabling it for your own packages but no one else's. IMHO distributors
> should not futz with packages more than is strictely necessary, and a
> change like this seems both unwarranted, and potentially dangero
Sean Chittenden writes:
> Hrm, I should go check the archives, but I thought what was used was
> one step below -C[fF] and was used because of size concerns for
> embedded databases. My memory for what happens on mailing lists seems
> to be fading though so I'll look it up.
The particular decis
> > Don't doubt it at all, but that reminds me: I need to add a message
> > reminding the developer to re-initdb when installing this version.
>
> The catversion check isn't good enough for you?
Nope, it's good enough and then some. I've gotten in the habit of
just re-initdb'ing and figured tha
Sean Chittenden <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> Don't doubt it at all, but that reminds me: I need to add a message
> reminding the developer to re-initdb when installing this version.
The catversion check isn't good enough for you?
It seems you are busily reinventing a bunch of decisions that hav
> > Has there been any talk of doing incremental -snapshots of the
> > code base?
>
> I don't really see the point. Snapshots of development code are
> available from CVS anyway -- and if you're going to be running a
> pre-alpha version of a relational database, I don't think that
> knowledge of
> > Agreed, however some of the loop-unrolling might prove to have some
> > optimization, but we'll see. I'd like to think that there's some
> > actual value in -O6 beyond the geek appeal of being able to say it's
> > been compiled with all the optimizations possible. ::shrug::
>
> BTW, -O3 is
Neil Conway <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> Sean Chittenden <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
>> Has there been any talk of doing incremental -snapshots of the code
>> base?
> I don't really see the point. Snapshots of development code are
> available from CVS anyway -- and if you're going to be running
> -Original Message-
> From: Neil Conway [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]]
> Sent: 10 September 2002 05:58
> To: Sean Chittenden
> Cc: Tom Lane; [EMAIL PROTECTED]
> Subject: Re: [HACKERS] Optimization levels when compiling
> PostgreSQL...
>
>
> Sean Chitten
Sean Chittenden <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> Has there been any talk of doing incremental -snapshots of the code
> base?
I don't really see the point. Snapshots of development code are
available from CVS anyway -- and if you're going to be running a
pre-alpha version of a relational database, I
Sean Chittenden <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> Agreed, however some of the loop-unrolling might prove to have some
> optimization, but we'll see. I'd like to think that there's some
> actual value in -O6 beyond the geek appeal of being able to say it's
> been compiled with all the optimizations po
> > > > My feeling is that gcc -O2 is quite well tested with the PG
> > > > code. I don't have any equivalent confidence in -O6. Give it
> > > > a shot for beta-testing, for sure, but I'm iffy about calling
> > > > that a production-grade database release...
> > >
> > > And of course the big qu
Sean Chittenden wrote:
> > > > The size difference between -O and -O3 is only 200K or so... does
> > > > anyone think that it'd be safe to head to -O6 on a wide scale?
> > >
> > > Dunno. I'm not aware of any bits of the code that are unportable enough
> > > to break with max optimization of any
> > > The size difference between -O and -O3 is only 200K or so... does
> > > anyone think that it'd be safe to head to -O6 on a wide scale?
> >
> > Dunno. I'm not aware of any bits of the code that are unportable enough
> > to break with max optimization of any correct compiler. But you might
Curt Sampson wrote:
> On Mon, 9 Sep 2002, Sean Chittenden wrote:
>
> > I'm thinking about changing this from a beta port to a -devel port
> > that I'll periodically update with snapshots. I'll turn on -O6 for
> > the -devel port and -O2 for production for now. If I don't hear of
> > any random
Sean Chittenden wrote:
> Hrm, I should go check the archives, but I thought what was used was
> one step below -C[fF] and was used because of size concerns for
> embedded databases. My memory for what happens on mailing lists seems
> to be fading though so I'll look it up.
I see in parser/Makefi
On Mon, 9 Sep 2002, Sean Chittenden wrote:
> I'm thinking about changing this from a beta port to a -devel port
> that I'll periodically update with snapshots. I'll turn on -O6 for
> the -devel port and -O2 for production for now. If I don't hear of
> any random bogons in the code I'll see if I
Tom Lane wrote:
> Sean Chittenden <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> > The size difference between -O and -O3 is only 200K or so... does
> > anyone think that it'd be safe to head to -O6 on a wide scale?
>
> Dunno. I'm not aware of any bits of the code that are unportable enough
> to break with max o
> > The size difference between -O and -O3 is only 200K or so... does
> > anyone think that it'd be safe to head to -O6 on a wide scale?
>
> Dunno. I'm not aware of any bits of the code that are unportable
> enough to break with max optimization of any correct compiler. But
> you might find suc
Sean Chittenden <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> The size difference between -O and -O3 is only 200K or so... does
> anyone think that it'd be safe to head to -O6 on a wide scale?
Dunno. I'm not aware of any bits of the code that are unportable enough
to break with max optimization of any correct c
In an attempt to beef up the PostgreSQL port for FreeBSD, I've added
an option for adding additional optimization, similar to what MySQL
does by compiling the server with -O6. I'm only compiling at -O3 with
the flag at the moment, however I wanted to ping the idea around to
make sure this isn't s
24 matches
Mail list logo
