Hi, On 2019-07-30 09:40:54 -0400, Tom Lane wrote: > Craig Ringer <cr...@2ndquadrant.com> writes: > > On Sun, 28 Jul 2019 at 03:15, Andres Freund <and...@anarazel.de> wrote: > >> 1) Just depend on DBD::Pg being installed. It's fairly common, after > >> all. It'd be somewhat annoying that we'd often end up using a > >> different version of libpq than what we're testing against. But in > >> most cases that'd not be particularly problematic. > > > I advocated for this in the past, and still think it's the best option. > > I think the not-same-libpq issue would be a much bigger problem than either > of you are accounting for. Some off-the-top-of-the-head reasons:
I came to the same conclusion? > Now, none of these things are really a problem with DBD/DBI as such > --- rather, they are reasons not to depend on a pre-packaged build > of DBD::Pg that depends on a pre-packaged build of libpq.so. > I haven't looked at the size, or the license, of DBD::Pg ... but > could it be sane to include our own modified copy in the tree? I had that as an alternative too. I think the license (Artistic v1/GPL v1) probably makes that non-feasible. The pure-perl version of DBI probably would otherwise be realistic. Greetings, Andres Freund
