Re: Path to PostgreSQL portabiliy
Tom Lane <tgl@sss.pgh.pa.us>
From: Tom Lane <tgl@sss.pgh.pa.us>
To: mlw <markw@mohawksoft.com>
Cc: PostgreSQL-development <pgsql-hackers@postgresql.org>, Jan Wieck <janwieck@yahoo.com>, "Marc G. Fournier" <scrappy@hub.org>, Dann Corbit <DCorbit@connx.com>
Date: 2002-05-08T14:03:43Z
Lists: pgsql-hackers
mlw <markw@mohawksoft.com> writes: > Port lib. Regardless where it comes from, the porting code should be a > self contained library, not a list of objects. On Windows, a .DLL can > do some things easier than an application. Also, having a library > allows more flexibility as to how a port is designed. That may be necessary on Windoze, but on any other platform breaking out an essential part of the backend as a library strikes me as a dead loss. You create extra risk of installation mistakes, can't-find-library startup failures, version mismatch problems, etc, etc --- for zero gain that I can see. For comparison you may want to observe the opinion expressed some time ago by Peter E. that we should fold plpgsql and the other PL's into the backend, instead of having them as dynamic-linked libraries. regards, tom lane