Re: static or dynamic libpgport

Andrew Dunstan <andrew(at)dunslane(dot)net> writes:
> On 12/09/2011 06:27 PM, Bruce Momjian wrote:
>> 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?

> Possibly. Below is a list of symbols from a recent build.

This doesn't seem like much of an issue to me, since anything wanting to
link against libpgport would be designed to work with whatever it
provides, no?

> The other
> thing is we'd need to turn on flags that make the object suitable for a
> dynamic library (e.g. -fpic).

Right now, libpq laboriously rebuilds all the .o files it needs from
src/port/ so as to get them with -fpic. It would be nice if we could
clean that up while we're doing this. It might be all right to always
build the client-side version of libpgport with -fpic, though I'd be sad
if that leaked into the server-side build.

regards, tom lane