Re: [HACKERS] Linking backend in one piece

2008-02-22 Thread Alvaro Herrera
Peter Eisentraut wrote: Here is a patch so that the backend is linked in one piece instead of using the SUBSYS.o files. The question is how we want to activate that. I currently used make BIGLINK=1, which is obviously just for testing. Should we just turn it on by default and see if

Re: [HACKERS] Linking backend in one piece

2008-02-22 Thread Tom Lane
Peter Eisentraut [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes: Here is a patch so that the backend is linked in one piece instead of using the SUBSYS.o files. The question is how we want to activate that. I currently used make BIGLINK=1, which is obviously just for testing. Should we just turn it on by

Re: [HACKERS] Linking backend in one piece

2008-02-22 Thread Peter Eisentraut
Am Freitag, 22. Februar 2008 schrieb Tom Lane: What is the build time like with vs without this? It's virtually indistinguishable. The big linker call doesn't take any measurable extra time. -- Peter Eisentraut http://developer.postgresql.org/~petere/ ---(end of

Re: [HACKERS] Linking backend in one piece

2008-02-22 Thread Peter Eisentraut
Am Freitag, 22. Februar 2008 schrieb Alvaro Herrera: Hmm.  Do we need the text file?  I was kinda hoping we could just aggregate each subdir's OBJS into a big variable listing all the needed files, and then invoking the linker with that. Well, my goal here was that we could use both ways of

Re: [HACKERS] Linking backend in one piece

2008-02-22 Thread Alvaro Herrera
Peter Eisentraut wrote: Eventually, we could ideally transform the subdirectory Makefiles from independently callable Makefiles to mere include files so we have only one big dependency tree at the top, which would get rid of the annoying and time-consuming directory traversal. This,

Re: [HACKERS] Linking backend in one piece

2008-02-22 Thread Tom Lane
Peter Eisentraut [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes: Well, my goal here was that we could use both ways of building for a while because we have no experience with how long command lines and argument lists we can handle portably. Yeah, I think it would be folly to assume that we can name all the

Re: [HACKERS] Linking backend in one piece

2008-02-22 Thread Peter Eisentraut
Am Freitag, 22. Februar 2008 schrieb Tom Lane: Yeah, I think it would be folly to assume that we can name all the individual object files in one big command line. But isn't the current patch trying to do exactly that? The current patch assumes that it works in most environments and offers the

Re: [HACKERS] Linking backend in one piece

2008-02-22 Thread Tom Lane
Peter Eisentraut [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes: Am Freitag, 22. Februar 2008 schrieb Tom Lane: Yeah, I think it would be folly to assume that we can name all the individual object files in one big command line. But isn't the current patch trying to do exactly that? The current patch assumes that

[HACKERS] Linking backend in one piece

2008-02-21 Thread Peter Eisentraut
Here is a patch so that the backend is linked in one piece instead of using the SUBSYS.o files. The question is how we want to activate that. I currently used make BIGLINK=1, which is obviously just for testing. Should we just turn it on by default and see if anyone complains? -- Peter

Re: [HACKERS] Linking backend in one piece

2008-02-21 Thread Dave Page
On Fri, Feb 22, 2008 at 7:48 AM, Peter Eisentraut [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: Here is a patch so that the backend is linked in one piece instead of using the SUBSYS.o files. The question is how we want to activate that. I currently used make BIGLINK=1, which is obviously just for testing.