Re: apr integration

From: Bob Rossi <bob_rossi(at)cox(dot)net>
To: Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us>
Cc: Peter Eisentraut <peter_e(at)gmx(dot)net>, pgsql-bugs(at)postgresql(dot)org
Subject: Re: apr integration
Date: 2008-05-20 00:49:46
Message-ID: 20080520004946.GH19723@brasko.net
Views: Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email
Thread:
Lists: pgsql-bugs

On Mon, May 19, 2008 at 08:30:46PM -0400, Tom Lane wrote:
> Bob Rossi <bob_rossi(at)cox(dot)net> writes:
> > On Tue, May 20, 2008 at 12:01:32AM +0200, Peter Eisentraut wrote:
> >> I don't know about Windows, but on Linux -lpq should always be enough (unless
> >> you are linking statically). Everything else would seem to be a bug.
>
> > Yup, linking statically.
>
> Do you have a really good reason for doing that? Just about every
> distro nowadays strongly discourages static linking, because it makes
> it so painful to deal with bug or security fixes in libraries. (Red Hat
> won't even distribute static libraries except in some special cases,
> and libpq definitely isn't one of the exceptions.)

I'm linking a commercial application. It was thought to be more
convienent to use static libraries for deplyoment purposes. What do you
think?

Bob Rossi

In response to

Browse pgsql-bugs by date

  From Date Subject
Next Message Peter Eisentraut 2008-05-20 01:33:27 Re: apr integration
Previous Message Tom Lane 2008-05-20 00:30:46 Re: apr integration