Re: static or dynamic libpgport

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  <bruce@momjian.us>        http://momjian.us EnterpriseDB
http://enterprisedb.com
 + It's impossible for everything to be true. +