On 12/12/2011 02:59 PM, Tom Lane wrote:
> Peter Eisentraut<peter_e@gmx.net> writes:
>> On lör, 2011-12-10 at 20:26 -0500, Tom Lane wrote:
>>> Right now, libpq laboriously rebuilds all the .o files it needs from
>>> src/port/ so as to get them with -fpic. It would be nice if we could
>>> clean that up while we're doing this. It might be all right to always
>>> build the client-side version of libpgport with -fpic, though I'd be sad
>>> if that leaked into the server-side build.
>> So would we continue to build the client binaries (psql, pg_dump, etc.)
>> against the static libpgport.a, thus keeping it "invisible" there, or
>> would we dynamically link them, thus creating a new dependency.
> I think that if possible we should avoid creating a new dependency for
> either the client binaries or libpq.so itself; what I suggest above
> is only a simplification of the build process for libpq. If we create
> a new dependency we risk packagers breaking things by forgetting to
> include it.
>
>
OK, I'll work on this basis. The downside is that we'll be building it
but not using it, but I can see the advantages.
cheers
andrew
