Hi,
On 2019-07-30 09:40:54 -0400, Tom Lane wrote:
> Craig Ringer <craig@2ndquadrant.com> writes:
> > On Sun, 28 Jul 2019 at 03:15, Andres Freund <andres@anarazel.de> wrote:
> >> 1) Just depend on DBD::Pg being installed. It's fairly common, after
> >> all. It'd be somewhat annoying that we'd often end up using a
> >> different version of libpq than what we're testing against. But in
> >> most cases that'd not be particularly problematic.
>
> > I advocated for this in the past, and still think it's the best option.
>
> I think the not-same-libpq issue would be a much bigger problem than either
> of you are accounting for. Some off-the-top-of-the-head reasons:
I came to the same conclusion?
> Now, none of these things are really a problem with DBD/DBI as such
> --- rather, they are reasons not to depend on a pre-packaged build
> of DBD::Pg that depends on a pre-packaged build of libpq.so.
> I haven't looked at the size, or the license, of DBD::Pg ... but
> could it be sane to include our own modified copy in the tree?
I had that as an alternative too. I think the license (Artistic v1/GPL
v1) probably makes that non-feasible. The pure-perl version of DBI
probably would otherwise be realistic.
Greetings,
Andres Freund
