Re: libpq's pollution of application namespace

From: Neil Conway <neilc(at)samurai(dot)com>
To: Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us>
Cc: Martijn van Oosterhout <kleptog(at)svana(dot)org>, pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org
Subject: Re: libpq's pollution of application namespace
Date: 2005-10-18 18:43:11
Message-ID: 1129660991.8219.65.camel@localhost.localdomain
Views: Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email
Thread:
Lists: pgsql-hackers

On Mon, 2005-17-10 at 13:32 -0400, Tom Lane wrote:
> I dislike portability approaches that try to enumerate supported cases,
> rather than being general in the first place.

Do we need to have this on every platform we support? The symbols we
want to hide are internal by convention anyway -- using a linker script
or similar technique just improves upon this by preventing applications
from misbehaving (and it also improves performance slightly). If no one
has bothered to add support for a particular platform's linker they
won't get these benefits, but that doesn't seem like a disaster.

-Neil

In response to

Responses

Browse pgsql-hackers by date

  From Date Subject
Next Message Larry Rosenman 2005-10-18 19:27:19 Alpha: HEAD: Failure
Previous Message Robert Creager 2005-10-18 18:24:03 Re: Seeing context switch storm with 10/13 snapshot of