Re: [HACKERS] [PATCH] relocation truncated to fit: citus build failure on s390x

Andres Freund writes: > On 2017-05-31 11:57:16 -0400, Alvaro Herrera wrote: >> My vote would be to backpatch it all the way. > +1 Done, buildfarm seems happy. regards, tom lane -- Sent via pgsql-hackers mailing list (pgsql-hackers@postgresql.org)

Re: [HACKERS] [PATCH] relocation truncated to fit: citus build failure on s390x

On 2017-05-31 11:57:16 -0400, Alvaro Herrera wrote: > My vote would be to backpatch it all the way. +1 -- Sent via pgsql-hackers mailing list (pgsql-hackers@postgresql.org) To make changes to your subscription: http://www.postgresql.org/mailpref/pgsql-hackers

Re: [HACKERS] [PATCH] relocation truncated to fit: citus build failure on s390x

Alvaro Herrera writes: > My vote would be to backpatch it all the way. That's my thought too. Otherwise it'll be five years before extension authors can stop worrying about this issue. regards, tom lane -- Sent via pgsql-hackers mailing list

Re: [HACKERS] [PATCH] relocation truncated to fit: citus build failure on s390x

Christoph Berg wrote: > Re: Tom Lane 2017-05-31 <28752.1496238...@sss.pgh.pa.us> > > Next question: should we back-patch this change, or just do it in HEAD? > > Debian "needs" it for 9.6, but I've already pushed the s390x patch in > the original posting, so I could just live with it being just

Re: [HACKERS] [PATCH] relocation truncated to fit: citus build failure on s390x

Re: Tom Lane 2017-05-31 <28752.1496238...@sss.pgh.pa.us> > OK, this looks good to me. Just to make sure everyone's on the > same page, what I propose to do is simplify all our platform-specific > Makefiles that use either -fpic or -fPIC to use -fPIC unconditionally. > This affects the netbsd,

Re: [HACKERS] [PATCH] relocation truncated to fit: citus build failure on s390x

Christoph Berg writes: > Re: Tom Lane 2017-05-30 <1564.1496176...@sss.pgh.pa.us> >> It'd be interesting if people could gather similar numbers on other >> platforms of more real-world relevance, such as ppc64. But based on >> this small sample, I wouldn't object to just going to

Re: [HACKERS] [PATCH] relocation truncated to fit: citus build failure on s390x

Re: Tom Lane 2017-05-30 <1564.1496176...@sss.pgh.pa.us> > It'd be interesting if people could gather similar numbers on other > platforms of more real-world relevance, such as ppc64. But based on > this small sample, I wouldn't object to just going to -fPIC across > the board. ppc64el, Debian

Re: [HACKERS] [PATCH] relocation truncated to fit: citus build failure on s390x

On Tue, May 30, 2017 at 4:38 PM, Tom Lane wrote: > It'd be interesting if people could gather similar numbers on other > platforms of more real-world relevance, such as ppc64. But based on > this small sample, I wouldn't object to just going to -fPIC across > the board. That

Re: [HACKERS] [PATCH] relocation truncated to fit: citus build failure on s390x

I wrote: > Very possibly true, but I wish we had some hard facts and not just > guesses. As a simple but on-point test, I compared sizes of postgres_fdw.so built with -fpic and -fPIC. I no longer have access to a wide variety of weird architectures, but on what I do have in my office: x86_64,

Re: [HACKERS] [PATCH] relocation truncated to fit: citus build failure on s390x

Re: Tom Lane 2017-05-30 <25131.1496163...@sss.pgh.pa.us> > Christoph Berg writes: > > My main point here would be that we are already setting this for all > > extensions for sparc and sparc64, so s390(x) would just follow suit. > > For some values of "we", sure ;-). Afaict for

Re: [HACKERS] [PATCH] relocation truncated to fit: citus build failure on s390x

Christoph Berg writes: > My main point here would be that we are already setting this for all > extensions for sparc and sparc64, so s390(x) would just follow suit. For some values of "we", sure ;-). But I think what is really under discussion here is whether to change -fpic to

Re: [HACKERS] [PATCH] relocation truncated to fit: citus build failure on s390x

Re: Andres Freund 2017-05-30 <20170530161541.koj5xbvvovrrt...@alap3.anarazel.de> > I think we can fix this easily enough in Citus, postgis, and whatever. > But it's not a particularly good user/developer experience, and > presumably is going to become more and more common. On x86 there > shouldn't

Re: [HACKERS] [PATCH] relocation truncated to fit: citus build failure on s390x

Andres Freund writes: > On 2017-05-29 15:45:11 -0400, Tom Lane wrote: >> 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

Re: [HACKERS] [PATCH] relocation truncated to fit: citus build failure on s390x

On 2017-05-29 15:45:11 -0400, Tom Lane wrote: > Christoph Berg writes: > > Re: To Andres Freund 2016-04-28 <20160428080824.ga22...@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

Re: [HACKERS] [PATCH] relocation truncated to fit: citus build failure on s390x

Robert Haas writes: > On Mon, May 29, 2017 at 3:45 PM, Tom Lane 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,

Re: [HACKERS] [PATCH] relocation truncated to fit: citus build failure on s390x

On Mon, May 29, 2017 at 3:45 PM, Tom Lane 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. >

Re: [HACKERS] [PATCH] relocation truncated to fit: citus build failure on s390x

Christoph Berg writes: > Re: To Andres Freund 2016-04-28 <20160428080824.ga22...@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

Re: [HACKERS] [PATCH] relocation truncated to fit: citus build failure on s390x

Re: To Andres Freund 2016-04-28 <20160428080824.ga22...@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: > >-fpic > Generate position-independent code