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

Re: Re: Sure enough, the lock file is gone

From: Lamar Owen <lamar(dot)owen(at)wgcr(dot)org>
To: Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us>
Cc: Trond Eivind Glomsrød <teg(at)redhat(dot)com>, Peter Eisentraut <peter_e(at)gmx(dot)net>, The Hermit Hacker <scrappy(at)hub(dot)org>, Florent Guillaume <efgeor(at)noos(dot)fr>, pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org
Subject: Re: Re: Sure enough, the lock file is gone
Date: 2001-01-28 23:00:35
Message-ID: (view raw, whole thread or download thread mbox)
Lists: pgsql-hackers
Tom Lane wrote:
> So, yes, if an old client has a dynamically linked then
> replacing the .so would bring that client into sync with a nonstandard
> server.

Of course, with the server and client on the same machine, the server
and the client dynamic libs are very likely to follow the same
'non-standard' as the is likely to be from the same build or
package as the server is.

> However, the pitfalls should be obvious: independently built
> clients, statically linked libraries, differing .so version numbers
> to name three risk areas.

These are real risks, of course.  I have personal experience with the
statically linked client and differing so version number cases.

And, yes, to echo your previous sentiment, if it breaks, the
distributor/packager is not the one that gets the compliants -- the
PostgreSQL community does.

So, for future discussion, a compromise will have to be arranged -- but
this really isn't a 7.1 issue, as this isn't a 'bugfix' per se -- you
have fixed the immediate problem.  But this is something to consider for
7.2 or later, as priorities are shuffled.
Lamar Owen
WGCR Internet Radio
1 Peter 4:11

In response to

pgsql-hackers by date

Next:From: Franck MartinDate: 2001-01-28 23:05:40
Subject: Development of ISO19100 support in PG
Previous:From: Tom LaneDate: 2001-01-28 22:59:42
Subject: Re: Re: Sure enough, the lock file is gone

Privacy Policy | About PostgreSQL
Copyright © 1996-2017 The PostgreSQL Global Development Group