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

Bruce Momjian <pgman@candle.pha.pa.us> writes:
>> Tom Lane wrote:
>>> Bruce Momjian <pgman@candle.pha.pa.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