Tom Lane writes:
> 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.
You do realize that as of now, -g is the default for gcc? Was that the
intent?
--
Peter Eisentraut peter_e(at)gmx(dot)net