Re: Future of src/utils

Peter Eisentraut <peter_e(at)gmx(dot)net> writes:
> I don't think we need to move the subdirectories, which involve stuff
> that's heavily tied to the backend. But the generic C library replacement
> files should move into src/utils preferably. In fact, what we could do is
> assemble all the files we need (as determined by configure) into a static
> library and link all executables with that. That way we don't have to
> deal with the individual files in each individual makefile.

I like that a lot. But will it work for libpq? I have a feeling we'd
end up linking *all* the replacement functions into libpq, which might
create some namespace issues for client applications. Ideally we should
only link the functions libpq actually needs into libpq, but I'm not
sure that works with standard linker behavior.

regards, tom lane