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

From Robert Haas
Subject Re: [HACKERS] [PATCH] relocation truncated to fit: citus buildfailure on s390x
Date
Msg-id CA+TgmoYk0eSy=wfiusUHsZvN+NF+R4RaoJic0y=Rz3ErKhwzyA@mail.gmail.com
Whole thread Raw
In response to Re: [HACKERS] [PATCH] relocation truncated to fit: citus build failure on s390x  (Tom Lane <tgl@sss.pgh.pa.us>)
Responses Re: [HACKERS] [PATCH] relocation truncated to fit: citus build failure on s390x  (Tom Lane <tgl@sss.pgh.pa.us>)
List pgsql-hackers
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.  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.

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?

--
Robert Haas
EnterpriseDB: http://www.enterprisedb.com
The Enterprise PostgreSQL Company


pgsql-hackers by date:

Previous
From: Petr Jelinek
Date:
Subject: Re: [HACKERS] Walsender timeouts and large transactions
Next
From: Amit Kapila
Date:
Subject: Re: [HACKERS] Fix GetOldestXmin comment