Re: [HACKERS] Re: AWL: PostgreSQL ODBC.
От | Tom Lane |
---|---|
Тема | Re: [HACKERS] Re: AWL: PostgreSQL ODBC. |
Дата | |
Msg-id | 6150.909506947@sss.pgh.pa.us обсуждение исходный текст |
Ответ на | Re: AWL: PostgreSQL ODBC. ("Thomas G. Lockhart" <lockhart@alumni.caltech.edu>) |
Список | pgsql-hackers |
"Thomas G. Lockhart" <lockhart@alumni.caltech.edu> writes: > Tom, I'm thinking of putting a "LDFLAGS_ODBC" into the port-specific > Makefile, to keep this goofy set of flags separate from other shared > libraries. They are necessary because the iodbc driver has _exactly_ the > same entry point names as the psqlodbc driver, Yipes. I suppose it's far too late to suggest that that convention is guaranteed to create porting problems? > and the linker > preferentially chooses the iodbc ones when resolving links (the setup is > that the iodbc generic driver dynamically links in the psqlodbc > db-specific one when connecting to a database). So you need to force > them beforehand with this flags, at least on Linux. I suspect that some such hackery will be necessary on almost every platform. Maybe you should put LDFLAGS_ODBC into the template files instead of the port makefiles? I've never been real clear on why we have both sets of mechanism... Anyway, I'd suggest making all of the LDFLAGS_SL assignments in Makefile.shlib be += rather than :=, and then the Makefile for the ODBC driver can add on the LDFLAGS_ODBC from wherever we decide to get them. Are there any other hacks besides setting more flags that we are likely to need? regards, tom lane
В списке pgsql-hackers по дате отправления: