From: | Andres Freund <andres(at)anarazel(dot)de> |
---|---|
To: | Jelte Fennema-Nio <postgres(at)jeltef(dot)nl> |
Cc: | PostgreSQL-development <pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org>, Nazir Bilal Yavuz <byavuz81(at)gmail(dot)com>, Thomas Munro <thomas(dot)munro(at)gmail(dot)com> |
Subject: | Re: Speed up clean meson builds by ~25% |
Date: | 2024-04-05 15:24:43 |
Message-ID: | 20240405152443.elplxt3mubpasged@awork3.anarazel.de |
Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
Thread: | |
Lists: | pgsql-hackers |
Hi,
On 2024-04-05 15:36:34 +0200, Jelte Fennema-Nio wrote:
> On Fri, 5 Apr 2024 at 00:45, Jelte Fennema-Nio <me(at)jeltef(dot)nl> wrote:
> > It improved clean build times on my machine (10 cores/20 threads) from ~40
> > seconds to ~30 seconds.
>
> After discussing this off-list with Bilal, I realized that this gain
> is only happening for clang builds on my system. Because those take a
> long time as was also recently discussed in[1]. My builds don't take
> nearly as long though. I tried with clang 15 through 18 and they all
> took 10-22 seconds to run and clang comes from apt.llvm.org on Ubuntu
> 22.04
>
> [1]: https://www.postgresql.org/message-id/flat/CA%2BhUKGLvJ7-%3DfS-J9kN%3DaZWrpyqykwqCBbxXLEhUa9831dPFcg%40mail.gmail.com
I recommend opening a bug report for clang, best with an already preprocessed
input file.
We're going to need to do something about this from our side as well, I
suspect. The times aren't great with gcc either, even if not as bad as with
clang.
Greetings,
Andres Freund
From | Date | Subject | |
---|---|---|---|
Next Message | Jelte Fennema-Nio | 2024-04-05 15:28:03 | Re: Add new protocol message to change GUCs for usage with future protocol-only GUCs |
Previous Message | Bertrand Drouvot | 2024-04-05 15:16:12 | Re: Synchronizing slots from primary to standby |