Re: libpq's pollution of application namespace - Mailing list pgsql-hackers

From Neil Conway
Subject Re: libpq's pollution of application namespace
Date
Msg-id 1129660991.8219.65.camel@localhost.localdomain
Whole thread Raw
In response to Re: libpq's pollution of application namespace  (Tom Lane <tgl@sss.pgh.pa.us>)
List pgsql-hackers
On Mon, 2005-17-10 at 13:32 -0400, Tom Lane wrote:
> I dislike portability approaches that try to enumerate supported cases,
> rather than being general in the first place.

Do we need to have this on every platform we support? The symbols we
want to hide are internal by convention anyway -- using a linker script
or similar technique just improves upon this by preventing applications
from misbehaving (and it also improves performance slightly). If no one
has bothered to add support for a particular platform's linker they
won't get these benefits, but that doesn't seem like a disaster.

-Neil




pgsql-hackers by date:

Previous
From: Robert Creager
Date:
Subject: Re: Seeing context switch storm with 10/13 snapshot of
Next
From: "Larry Rosenman"
Date:
Subject: Alpha: HEAD: Failure