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

From Peter Geoghegan
Subject Re: static or dynamic libpgport
Date
Msg-id CAEYLb_V4GJNhP5BOBzpc_MTZ6oftrB3NpBV-9BKJqJwOOcDx1g@mail.gmail.com
Whole thread Raw
In response to static or dynamic libpgport  (Andrew Dunstan <andrew@dunslane.net>)
List pgsql-hackers
On 9 December 2011 16:13, Andrew Dunstan <andrew@dunslane.net> wrote:
> Is there any good reason why we shouldn't build and install a dynamic
> libpgport.so?

+1 in favour of building and installing a dynamic libpgport.so. I
generally agree with your analysis.

I've seen this issue crop up a good few times now. I'm a Fedora user
myself, but about 2 years ago I got into a "he said she said"
situation with an OpenSUSE package maintainer over this, when I had to
build Slony on that platform. I'm a bit hazy on the details now, but
iirc he thought that it wasn't necessary to ship libpgport.a in
particular (though I don't think that they have a beef with static
libraries generally) - maybe they took a cue from Redhat there?

--
Peter Geoghegan       http://www.2ndQuadrant.com/
PostgreSQL Development, 24x7 Support, Training and Services


pgsql-hackers by date:

Previous
From: Andrew Dunstan
Date:
Subject: static or dynamic libpgport
Next
From: Pavel Stehule
Date:
Subject: Re: review: CHECK FUNCTION statement