Sean Chittenden wrote: > > > > 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... > > > > And of course the big question is whether you will see any performance > > improvement with -O6 vs. -O2. My guess is no. > > Agreed, however some of the loop-unrolling might prove to have some > optimization, but we'll see. I'd like to think that there's some > actual value in -O6 beyond the geek appeal of being able to say it's > been compiled with all the optimizations possible. ::shrug::
And you think the answer is ... I think we all know what the answer is. :-) -- Bruce Momjian | http://candle.pha.pa.us [EMAIL PROTECTED] | (610) 359-1001 + If your life is a hard drive, | 13 Roberts Road + Christ can be your backup. | Newtown Square, Pennsylvania 19073 ---------------------------(end of broadcast)--------------------------- TIP 5: Have you checked our extensive FAQ? http://www.postgresql.org/users-lounge/docs/faq.html