| From: | Andrew Dunstan <andrew(at)dunslane(dot)net> |
|---|---|
| To: | Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us> |
| Cc: | Greg Stark <gsstark(at)mit(dot)edu>, David Fetter <david(at)fetter(dot)org>, Dag-Erling Smørgrav <des(at)des(dot)no>, Magnus Hagander <magnus(at)hagander(dot)net>, pgsql-hackers <pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org> |
| Subject: | Re: [patch] build issues on Win32 |
| Date: | 2010-03-11 20:38:53 |
| Message-ID: | 4B9954DD.7080803@dunslane.net |
| Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
| Thread: | |
| Lists: | pgsql-hackers |
Tom Lane wrote:
> Now libpq doesn't often have critical security bugs filed against it,
> but it certainly has bugs. Do you really want to have to remember to
> rebuild every piece of dependent software when you update it? The OP's
> case apparently involves multiple independent libraries that he wants to
> link statically, which makes the problem multiple times worse.
>
> So my position is that static linking has enough negatives that you
> need a lot more than a hypothetical use-case to justify it.
>
>
+1.
cheers
andrew
| From | Date | Subject | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Next Message | Tom Lane | 2010-03-11 20:52:29 | Re: HeapTupleData.t_self garbage values |
| Previous Message | Greg Stark | 2010-03-11 20:35:48 | Re: [patch] build issues on Win32 |