Re: static or dynamic libpgport - Mailing list pgsql-hackers

From Peter Eisentraut
Subject Re: static or dynamic libpgport
Date
Msg-id 1323719848.20924.12.camel@vanquo.pezone.net
Whole thread Raw
In response to static or dynamic libpgport  (Andrew Dunstan <andrew@dunslane.net>)
List pgsql-hackers
On fre, 2011-12-09 at 11:13 -0500, Andrew Dunstan wrote:
> Is there any good reason why we shouldn't build and install a dynamic 
> libpgport.so?

Just note, if you do this, you need to carefully manage API, ABI,
soname, symbol list, and all that.  Every time you tweak configure's
decision about when to include a replacement function, you need to
change the library version.  Every time you remove a function, you need
to change the soname.  Every backpatched portability fix has the
potential to escalate to a full shared library versioning dance.
Downstream packagers will be delighted, especially if this requires
changing the package name every three minor releases.

To see what this can lead to in the extreme, check the dependencies that
bind has on its internal libraries:

bind9 depends: libbind9-60, libdns69, libisc62, libisccc60, libisccfg62, liblwres60




pgsql-hackers by date:

Previous
From: "Kevin Grittner"
Date:
Subject: Re: [REVIEW] Patch for cursor calling with named parameters
Next
From: Robert Haas
Date:
Subject: Re: JSON for PG 9.2