Re: RTLD_LAZY considered harmful (Re: pltlc and pltlcu problems)
Tom Lane <tgl@sss.pgh.pa.us>
From: Tom Lane <tgl@sss.pgh.pa.us>
To: Bruce Momjian <pgman@candle.pha.pa.us>
Cc: Christopher Kings-Lynne <chriskl@familyhealth.com.au>, David Terrell <dbt@meat.net>, Brent Verner <brent@rcfile.org>, Murray Prior Hobbs <murray@efone.com>, Lamar Owen <lamar.owen@wgcr.org>, pgsql-hackers@postgresql.org
Date: 2002-01-21T17:03:24Z
Lists: pgsql-hackers
Bruce Momjian <pgman@candle.pha.pa.us> writes: > Interesting LAZY has better efficiency. "Efficiency" by what measure? I would think that batch resolution of symbols would be faster than taking a trap for each one. > Seems we should just keep LAZY > as our default for future releases and tell people if they link to bad > object files, they should expect trouble. (a) How are they going to find out if the object files are bad, other than by crashing their database? I *really* don't like the attitude that a backend crash is okay. Under any circumstances, development or not. (b) Badness may depend on context, eg LD_LIBRARY_PATH. So it's not really safe to assume that if it worked before then you don't have to worry about it crashing you in production. regards, tom lane