From: | Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us> |
---|---|
To: | Robert Haas <robertmhaas(at)gmail(dot)com> |
Cc: | Christoph Berg <myon(at)debian(dot)org>, Andres Freund <andres(at)anarazel(dot)de>, Jason Petersen <jason(at)citusdata(dot)com>, pgsql-pkg-debian(at)postgresql(dot)org, PostgreSQL Hackers <pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org> |
Subject: | Re: [HACKERS] [PATCH] relocation truncated to fit: citus build failure on s390x |
Date: | 2017-05-30 14:12:46 |
Message-ID: | 11629.1496153566@sss.pgh.pa.us |
Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
Thread: | |
Lists: | Postg토토SQL : Postg토토SQL 토토 사이트 : 토토 사이트 메일 |
Robert Haas <robertmhaas(at)gmail(dot)com> writes:
> On Mon, May 29, 2017 at 3:45 PM, Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)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
From | Date | Subject | |
---|---|---|---|
Next Message | Robert Haas | 2017-05-30 14:37:53 | Re: [HACKERS] Channel binding support for SCRAM-SHA-256 |
Previous Message | Amit Kapila | 2017-05-30 14:07:21 | Re: Fix GetOldestXmin comment |
From | Date | Subject | |
---|---|---|---|
Next Message | Andres Freund | 2017-05-30 16:15:41 | Re: [HACKERS] [PATCH] relocation truncated to fit: citus build failure on s390x |
Previous Message | Robert Haas | 2017-05-30 14:02:56 | Re: [HACKERS] [PATCH] relocation truncated to fit: citus build failure on s390x |