Re: RTLD_LAZY considered harmful (Re: pltlc and pltlcu

From: Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us>
To: pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org
Subject: Re: RTLD_LAZY considered harmful (Re: pltlc and pltlcu
Date: 2002-02-12 00:49:57
Message-ID: 18523.1013474997@sss.pgh.pa.us
Views: Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email
Thread:
Lists: pgsql-hackers pgsql-sql

I wrote:
> I hate to sound like a broken record, but I want to re-open that
> discussion about RTLD_LAZY binding that trailed off a week or two
> ago.
> ... I therefore assert that the current coding is effectively untested
> on Linux, which is probably our most popular platform, and therefore
> it should *NOT* be accorded the respect normally due to the status
> quo. Arguably, 7.2 has introduced breakage here.

After some further digging around on the net, I believe that coding in
the following style is safe and will work on all systems supporting
dlopen():

/*
* In older systems, like SunOS 4.1.3, the RTLD_NOW flag isn't defined
* and the mode argument to dlopen must always be 1. The RTLD_GLOBAL
* flag is wanted if available, but it doesn't exist everywhere.
* If it doesn't exist, set it to 0 so it has no effect.
*/
#ifndef RTLD_NOW
# define RTLD_NOW 1
#endif

#ifndef RTLD_GLOBAL
# define RTLD_GLOBAL 0
#endif

#define pg_dlopen(f) dlopen((f), RTLD_NOW | RTLD_GLOBAL)

I also believe that this will produce more consistent cross-platform
behavior: so far as I could learn from googling, systems that do not
define RTLD_NOW/RTLD_LAZY all act as though the mode were RTLD_NOW,
ie, immediate binding.

Any objections to modifying all the port/dynloader files this way?

regards, tom lane

In response to

Responses

Browse pgsql-hackers by date

  From Date Subject
Next Message pgsql-bugs 2002-02-12 01:26:37 Bug #581: Sequence cannot be deleted
Previous Message Philip Warner 2002-02-12 00:15:24 Re: Idea for making COPY data Microsoft-proof

Browse pgsql-sql by date

  From Date Subject
Next Message Tom Lane 2002-02-12 01:18:22 Re: UNION and rows improperly unified: query optimization question
Previous Message David Stanaway 2002-02-11 22:58:12 Re: Support for bulk reads/writes ?