Skip site navigation (1) Skip section navigation (2)

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 (view raw or flat)
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

pgsql-bugs by date

Next:From: Peter EisentrautDate: 2008-05-20 01:33:27
Subject: Re: apr integration
Previous:From: Tom LaneDate: 2008-05-20 00:30:46
Subject: Re: apr integration

Privacy Policy | About PostgreSQL
Copyright © 1996-2014 The PostgreSQL Global Development Group