On Tue, Oct 02, 2007 at 04:07:06PM -0400, Tom Lane wrote:
> Magnus Hagander <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> > Michael Meskes wrote:
> >> So, does an explicit export list help? If so I'm all for it. There is no
> >> need to export all symbols. I always tried to keep the number of symbols
> >> that get exported but are not needed low. So this will give the best
> >> result possible.
> > Yeah, it does seem to fix it.
> That's very good news.  If Michael can put together an export list
> soon then we'll be in good shape.

I will work on it asap.

> Michael: you should bump the major version number of ecpglib when you do
> this.  Removing the not-officially-exported visible symbols *is* an ABI
> break.  You may think there isn't anything depending on them, but
> remember how we thought that (twice) for libpq too.  Bumping the major
> version number will be cheap insurance against complaints later.

ecpg received a bump from 5 to 6 in this release anyway because of some
other ABI changes, so at least here we're fine. :-)

Michael Meskes
Email: Michael at Fam-Meskes dot De, Michael at Meskes dot (De|Com|Net|Org)
ICQ: 179140304, AIM/Yahoo: michaelmeskes, Jabber: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Go SF 49ers! Go Rhein Fire! Use Debian GNU/Linux! Use PostgreSQL!

---------------------------(end of broadcast)---------------------------
TIP 2: Don't 'kill -9' the postmaster

Reply via email to