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