Re: Re: [SQL] Re: [GENERAL] lztext and compression ratios...
От | Tom Lane |
---|---|
Тема | Re: Re: [SQL] Re: [GENERAL] lztext and compression ratios... |
Дата | |
Msg-id | 19527.963020993@sss.pgh.pa.us обсуждение исходный текст |
Ответ на | Re: Re: [SQL] Re: [GENERAL] lztext and compression ratios... (Bruce Momjian <pgman@candle.pha.pa.us>) |
Ответы |
Re: Re: [SQL] Re: [GENERAL] lztext and compression ratios...
Re: Re: [SQL] Re: [GENERAL] lztext and compression ratios... |
Список | pgsql-hackers |
>> This remoinded me of a question I wanted to ask Unix people: other OSs I >> use allow for dynamic linking, at runtime and in code, against shared >> libraries, and I know Unix must allow this. The places where zlib is used >> are pretty limited, so it might be worth considering doing the 'HAVE_ZLIB' >> kinds of checks at runtime. Then one binary fits all... > We do dynamic loading for functions. Not sure if we want to load zlib > dynamically if we can help it. Not bloody likely! Do you want to be in a position where you restart your postmaster and suddenly chunks of your database are inaccessible? That's what could happen to you if someone moves or deletes libz.so. I don't mind being dynamically linked to standard system shared libs; if libc.so is busted then whether Postgres launches is the least of your worries. But dynamic dependence on an optional package that's probably living in /usr/local strikes me as exceedingly risky. If we do go with using zlib instead of homegrown code, I would recommend building and statically linking to our own copy even if there is a copy available on the system. This will prevent cross-version compatibility problems as well as where'd-my-library-go syndrome. We cannot afford those sorts of risks for something that could prevent us from reading our database. regards, tom lane
В списке pgsql-hackers по дате отправления: