Re: libpq's pollution of application namespace

On Mon, Oct 17, 2005 at 01:32:47PM -0400, Tom Lane wrote:
> (a) This problem is really not worth the trouble.
>
> (b) I dislike portability approaches that try to enumerate supported
> cases, rather than being general in the first place. Especially when
> we can be pretty certain that this area is so unstandardized that *no*
> toolchain you haven't specifically coded a case for will work.

Well, cleaning up your exported namespace is recommended as it also
affects the loading time of applications. I'm just wondering given that
libpq can be pulled into any unsuspecting application via PAM
(libpam-pgsql) or NSS (libnss-pgsql1), we should be at least trying to
cut down the exported symbols.

Changing the names to something less likely to conflict is good. I just
think it may be worthwhile to solve it for the common platform (gcc)
and worry about the others later (if ever).

BTW, I think you missed:

promote_v4_to_v6_addr
promote_v4_to_v6_mask

--
Martijn van Oosterhout <kleptog(at)svana(dot)org> http://svana.org/kleptog/
> Patent. n. Genius is 5% inspiration and 95% perspiration. A patent is a
> tool for doing 5% of the work and then sitting around waiting for someone
> else to do the other 95% so you can sue them.