Re: [HACKERS] [PATCH] relocation truncated to fit: citus build failure on s390x - Mailing list pgsql-hackers

From Tom Lane
Subject Re: [HACKERS] [PATCH] relocation truncated to fit: citus build failure on s390x
Date
Msg-id 11629.1496153566@sss.pgh.pa.us
Whole thread Raw
In response to Re: [HACKERS] [PATCH] relocation truncated to fit: citus buildfailure on s390x  (Robert Haas <robertmhaas@gmail.com>)
List pgsql-hackers
Robert Haas <robertmhaas@gmail.com> writes:
> 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.

> 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?

My gut feeling is that it'd be a pretty distributed cost, because every
internal cross-reference in the .so (for instance, loading the address of
a string literal) would involve a bit more overhead to support a wider
offset field.  An easy thing to look at would be how much the code expands
by.  That might or might not be a good proxy for the runtime slowdown
percentage, but it seems like it ought to serve as a zero-order
approximation.

            regards, tom lane


pgsql-hackers by date:

Previous
From: Amit Kapila
Date:
Subject: Re: [HACKERS] Fix GetOldestXmin comment
Next
From: Robert Haas
Date:
Subject: Re: [HACKERS] Channel binding support for SCRAM-SHA-256