Re: Still a few flaws in configure's default CFLAGS selection

Bruce Momjian <pgman(at)candle(dot)pha(dot)pa(dot)us> writes:
>> Tom Lane wrote:
>>> Bruce Momjian <pgman(at)candle(dot)pha(dot)pa(dot)us> 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