| From: | Peter Eisentraut <peter_e(at)gmx(dot)net> |
|---|---|
| To: | Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us> |
| Cc: | Andrew Dunstan <andrew(at)dunslane(dot)net>, Bruce Momjian <bruce(at)momjian(dot)us>, Steve Singer <ssinger(at)ca(dot)afilias(dot)info>, PostgreSQL-development <pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org> |
| Subject: | Re: static or dynamic libpgport |
| Date: | 2011-12-12 19:49:26 |
| Message-ID: | 1323719366.20924.4.camel@vanquo.pezone.net |
| Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
| Thread: | |
| Lists: | pgsql-hackers |
On lör, 2011-12-10 at 20:26 -0500, Tom Lane wrote:
> > The other
> > thing is we'd need to turn on flags that make the object suitable for a
> > dynamic library (e.g. -fpic).
>
> Right now, libpq laboriously rebuilds all the .o files it needs from
> src/port/ so as to get them with -fpic. It would be nice if we could
> clean that up while we're doing this. It might be all right to always
> build the client-side version of libpgport with -fpic, though I'd be sad
> if that leaked into the server-side build.
So would we continue to build the client binaries (psql, pg_dump, etc.)
against the static libpgport.a, thus keeping it "invisible" there, or
would we dynamically link them, thus creating a new dependency.
| From | Date | Subject | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Next Message | Peter Eisentraut | 2011-12-12 19:53:22 | Re: patch for type privileges |
| Previous Message | Simon Riggs | 2011-12-12 19:39:45 | Re: Is anybody actually using XLR_BKP_REMOVABLE? |