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 27883.1496087111@sss.pgh.pa.us
Whole thread Raw
In response to Re: [HACKERS] [PATCH] relocation truncated to fit: citus buildfailure on s390x  (Christoph Berg <myon@debian.org>)
Responses Re: [HACKERS] [PATCH] relocation truncated to fit: citus buildfailure on s390x  (Robert Haas <robertmhaas@gmail.com>)
Re: [HACKERS] [PATCH] relocation truncated to fit: citus buildfailure on s390x  (Andres Freund <andres@anarazel.de>)
List pgsql-hackers
Christoph Berg <myon@debian.org> writes:
> Re: To Andres Freund 2016-04-28 <20160428080824.GA22412@msg.df7cb.de>
>>> I'm not clear why citus triggers this, when other extensions don't?

>> Maybe it's simply because citus.so is bigger than all the other
>> extension .so files:

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.

            regards, tom lane


pgsql-hackers by date:

Previous
From: Andres Freund
Date:
Subject: Re: [HACKERS] logical replication busy-waiting on a lock
Next
From: Tom Lane
Date:
Subject: Re: [HACKERS] Use of non-restart-safe storage by temp_tablespaces