Andrew Dunstan wrote: > >> Is there any good reason why we shouldn't build and install a dynamic > >> libpgport.so? > > > > +1 > > > > We've struggled with slony and pgport because so many users have had > > problems with pgport not being included in some distributions. It has > > some useful functions, I think recent versions of slony use it on > > win32 but don't elsewhere. Wee have had at least one patch floating > > around that makes conditionally includes certain small behaviours in > > slony based on if pgport is available or not based on a configure check. > > > > What package would a shared static pgport be installed with? Slony > > requires a server + headers to build but slon and slonik only have a > > runtime dependency on libpq (I don't know if anyone installs > > slon/slonik on a machine without a postgresql server but you could) > > > > > > In the Fedora world, a static lib would go in postgresql-devel, but a > dynamic lib would go in postgresql-libs, which is also where libpq is > shipped.
I am not against shipping a dynamic libpgport, but I will just point out that this was never intended or anticipated. Are there any symbols in there that might conflict with other software? -- Bruce Momjian <br...@momjian.us> http://momjian.us EnterpriseDB http://enterprisedb.com + It's impossible for everything to be true. + -- Sent via pgsql-hackers mailing list (pgsql-hackers@postgresql.org) To make changes to your subscription: http://www.postgresql.org/mailpref/pgsql-hackers
