Re: Optimization levels when compiling PostgreSQL... - Mailing list pgsql-hackers
From | Sean Chittenden |
---|---|
Subject | Re: Optimization levels when compiling PostgreSQL... |
Date | |
Msg-id | 20020910025419.GS26147@ninja1.internal Whole thread Raw |
In response to | Re: Optimization levels when compiling PostgreSQL... (Tom Lane <tgl@sss.pgh.pa.us>) |
Responses |
Re: Optimization levels when compiling PostgreSQL...
Re: Optimization levels when compiling PostgreSQL... Re: Optimization levels when compiling PostgreSQL... Re: Optimization levels when compiling PostgreSQL... Re: Optimization levels when compiling PostgreSQL... |
List | pgsql-hackers |
> > 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 such a bug. Or a bug in your compiler. Are you > feeling lucky today? > > 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... 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 can't increase it further to -O3 and beyond at a slow/incremental rate. Has there been any talk of doing incremental -snapshots of the code base? I've really fallen inlove with the concept for development. Having incremental changes is much easier to cope with than massive steps forward. > > I'm even thinking about going so far as to have flex required for the > > build dependencies and setting -Cf or -CF for building the scanner > > (need to check the archives for which turned out to be faster). > > Um, didn't we do that stuff already in the standard build? AFAIK > you cannot build PG with any lexer except flex, and Peter already > hacked the flags. 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'm also tinkering with the idea of automatically turn off fsync if > > optimize is set. > > No-bloody-way. Trusting your compiler is an entirely separate issue > from whether you trust your disk hardware, power source, etc. > Puh-leez do not muddy the waters by introducing a port-specific > variation in choices that only the DBA of a particular installation > should make. Whoop, guess I won't do that. :~) Thanks. -sc -- Sean Chittenden
pgsql-hackers by date: