Bruce Momjian <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes: >> Tom Lane wrote: >>> Bruce Momjian <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes: >>> Also, I thought Peter advocated adding -g a few releases back.
>> I don't recall any such vote. > The vote was whether -g should be used for a default compile. > Here is the thread discussing the -g flag: > http://archives.postgresql.org/pgsql-hackers/2002-04/msg00281.php What Peter was advocating in that thread was that we enable -g by default *when building with gcc*. I have no problem with that, since there is (allegedly) no performance penalty for -g with gcc. However, the actual present behavior of our configure script is to default to -g for every compiler, and I think that that is a big mistake. On most non-gcc compilers, -g disables optimizations, which is way too high a price to pay for production use. regards, tom lane ---------------------------(end of broadcast)--------------------------- TIP 4: Don't 'kill -9' the postmaster
