Re: Is the linking with -lodbc necessary? (--with-odbc)

From: Pavel Raiskup <praiskup(at)redhat(dot)com>
To: pgsql-odbc(at)postgresql(dot)org
Cc: hhorak(at)redhat(dot)com, Nick Gorham <nick(at)lurcher(dot)org>, unixodbc-dev(at)mailman(dot)unixodbc(dot)org
Subject: Re: Is the linking with -lodbc necessary? (--with-odbc)
Date: 2013-11-13 10:41:40
Message-ID: 1409513.mLKAv12qaO@nb.usersys.redhat.com
Views: Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email
Thread:
Lists: pgsql-odbc

[+cc back psqlodbc]
[+cc unixODBC]

On Tuesday, November 12, 2013 11:46:39 Nick Gorham wrote:
> On 11/11/13 17:50, Pavel Raiskup wrote:
> > Hello all!
> >
> > Long story short: Is there a need to link psqlodbcw.so plugin against
> > libodbc.so? Principal problem: That library provides ABI for applications
> > - not for plugins; at least it seem to be like that.
> >
> > I tried to remove this linking by following tweak:
>
> Hi,
>
> As you have noticed, there is code in the DM to try and avoid what you
> describe. But AFAIK, a driver would normally link against -lodbcinst to
> gain access to the ini functions SQLGetPrivateProfileString and so on,
> no need to link to the driver manager (-lodbc) that is for application
> land use.

Hello Nick, thanks for looking at the problem from unixODBC perspective!

Would not there be better rather block loading badly linked plugins rather
than just try to expect that the linking is done the same way on all arches?
I attached possible solution.

Pavel

Attachment Content-Type Size
0001-DM-Don-t-load-plugins-linked-back-against-libodbc.so.patch text/x-patch 20.2 KB

In response to

Responses

Browse pgsql-odbc by date

  From Date Subject
Next Message Pavel Raiskup 2013-11-13 10:53:00 Re: Is the linking with -lodbc necessary? (--with-odbc)
Previous Message Pavel Raiskup 2013-11-12 17:54:10 Re: Is the linking with -lodbc necessary? (--with-odbc)