From: | Andres Freund <andres(at)anarazel(dot)de> |
---|---|
To: | Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us> |
Cc: | Peter Eisentraut <peter(dot)eisentraut(at)enterprisedb(dot)com>, pgsql-hackers <pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org> |
Subject: | Re: configure openldap crash warning |
Date: | 2022-08-30 03:48:30 |
Message-ID: | 20220830034830.i46652ff7jb25y4z@awork3.anarazel.de |
Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
Thread: | |
Lists: | pgsql-hackers |
Hi,
On 2022-08-29 23:18:23 -0400, Tom Lane wrote:
> Andres Freund <andres(at)anarazel(dot)de> writes:
> > Why do we continue to link the backend to ldap when we find ldap_r, given that
> > we know that it can cause problems for extension libraries using libpq?
>
> Uh ... if we know that, it's news to me.
Isn't that what the configure warning Peter mentioned upthread is about?
# PGAC_LDAP_SAFE
# --------------
# PostgreSQL sometimes loads libldap_r and plain libldap into the same
# process. Check for OpenLDAP versions known not to tolerate doing so; assume
# non-OpenLDAP implementations are safe. The dblink test suite exercises the
# hazardous interaction directly.
The patch applied as a result of this thread dealt with a different version of
the problem, with -lldap_r picking up a different library version than -lldap.
Leaving that aside it also doesn't seem like a great idea to have two
different copies of the nearly same library loaded for efficiency reasons, not
that it'll make a large difference...
Greetings,
Andres Freund
From | Date | Subject | |
---|---|---|---|
Next Message | Junwang Zhao | 2022-08-30 03:56:30 | [PATCH v1] [doc] polish the comments of reloptions |
Previous Message | Tom Lane | 2022-08-30 03:31:11 | Re: Reducing the chunk header sizes on all memory context types |