Re: Bison 3.0 updates - Mailing list pgsql-hackers

From Tom Lane
Subject Re: Bison 3.0 updates
Date
Msg-id 22552.1375099369@sss.pgh.pa.us
Whole thread Raw
In response to Re: Bison 3.0 updates  (Andres Freund <andres@2ndquadrant.com>)
Responses Re: Bison 3.0 updates
Re: Bison 3.0 updates
List pgsql-hackers
Andres Freund <andres@2ndquadrant.com> writes:
> On 2013-07-29 07:11:13 -0400, Stephen Frost wrote:
>> * Tom Lane (tgl@sss.pgh.pa.us) wrote:
>>> The bottom line was:
>>> It looks like our choices are (1) teach configure to enable
>>> -fno-aggressive-loop-optimizations if the compiler recognizes it,
>>> or (2) back-port commit 8137f2c32322c624e0431fac1621e8e9315202f9.
>>> 
>>> I am in favor of fixing the back branches via (1), because it's less
>>> work and much less likely to break third-party extensions.  Some other
>>> people argued for (2), but I've not seen any patch emerge from them,
>>> and you can bet I'm not going to do it.

>> Yea, just passing -fno-aggressive-loop-optimizations seems like the
>> safest and best option to me also..

> I think we need to do both. There very well might be other optimizations
> made based on the unreachability information.

If we turn off the optimization, that will fix any other cases as well,
no?  So why would we risk breaking third-party code by back-porting the
struct declaration changes?
        regards, tom lane



pgsql-hackers by date:

Previous
From: Amit Kapila
Date:
Subject: Re: ALTER SYSTEM SET command to change postgresql.conf parameters (RE: Proposal for Allow postgresql.conf values to be changed via SQL [review])
Next
From: Greg Stark
Date:
Subject: Re: Review: UNNEST (and other functions) WITH ORDINALITY