| From: | Bob Rossi <bob_rossi(at)cox(dot)net> |
|---|---|
| To: | Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us> |
| Cc: | Peter Eisentraut <peter_e(at)gmx(dot)net>, pgsql-bugs(at)postgresql(dot)org |
| Subject: | Re: apr integration |
| Date: | 2008-05-20 00:49:46 |
| Message-ID: | 20080520004946.GH19723@brasko.net |
| Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
| Thread: | |
| Lists: | pgsql-bugs |
On Mon, May 19, 2008 at 08:30:46PM -0400, Tom Lane wrote:
> Bob Rossi <bob_rossi(at)cox(dot)net> writes:
> > On Tue, May 20, 2008 at 12:01:32AM +0200, Peter Eisentraut wrote:
> >> I don't know about Windows, but on Linux -lpq should always be enough (unless
> >> you are linking statically). Everything else would seem to be a bug.
>
> > Yup, linking statically.
>
> Do you have a really good reason for doing that? Just about every
> distro nowadays strongly discourages static linking, because it makes
> it so painful to deal with bug or security fixes in libraries. (Red Hat
> won't even distribute static libraries except in some special cases,
> and libpq definitely isn't one of the exceptions.)
I'm linking a commercial application. It was thought to be more
convienent to use static libraries for deplyoment purposes. What do you
think?
Bob Rossi
| From | Date | Subject | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Next Message | Peter Eisentraut | 2008-05-20 01:33:27 | Re: apr integration |
| Previous Message | Tom Lane | 2008-05-20 00:30:46 | Re: apr integration |