Andres Freund <and...@anarazel.de> writes:
> On 2017-10-11 11:58:58 -0400, Tom Lane wrote:
>> I agree the PITA factor of the current approach keeps increasing.
>> It sounds a bit silly to build libpgport three ways, but maybe
>> we should just do that.
> We already kinda are, just by copying things around ;)
Yeah. I hadn't realized how much duplication of effort is happening
within ecpg. This was a somewhat reasonable solution when it was
first invented for libpq only, but building snprintf.o four times
is pretty silly.
>> Or conceivably we should just build the FE version of libpgport.a
>> with -fPIC and not worry about whether that loses some efficiency
>> for client programs. A lot of distros are effectively forcing
>> that, or even -fPIE, anyway.
> Hm.
On reflection, let's just go with the solution of building libpgport_lib.a
with the right flags (fPIC + threading) and leave libpgport.a alone.
That way we don't need a debate about whether there's an efficiency
cost worth worrying about.
regards, tom lane
--
Sent via pgsql-hackers mailing list (pgsql-hackers@postgresql.org)
To make changes to your subscription:
http://www.postgresql.org/mailpref/pgsql-hackers
