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 ass

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 t

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 in

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, ho

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 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 broa

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 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

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.

[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 Eise