On Tue, Oct 02, 2007 at 04:07:06PM -0400, Tom Lane wrote: > Magnus Hagander <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes: > > Michael Meskes wrote: > >> So, does an explicit export list help? If so I'm all for it. There is no > >> need to export all symbols. I always tried to keep the number of symbols > >> that get exported but are not needed low. So this will give the best > >> result possible. > > > Yeah, it does seem to fix it. > > That's very good news. If Michael can put together an export list > soon then we'll be in good shape.
I will work on it asap. > Michael: you should bump the major version number of ecpglib when you do > this. Removing the not-officially-exported visible symbols *is* an ABI > break. You may think there isn't anything depending on them, but > remember how we thought that (twice) for libpq too. Bumping the major > version number will be cheap insurance against complaints later. ecpg received a bump from 5 to 6 in this release anyway because of some other ABI changes, so at least here we're fine. :-) Michael -- Michael Meskes Email: Michael at Fam-Meskes dot De, Michael at Meskes dot (De|Com|Net|Org) ICQ: 179140304, AIM/Yahoo: michaelmeskes, Jabber: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Go SF 49ers! Go Rhein Fire! Use Debian GNU/Linux! Use PostgreSQL! ---------------------------(end of broadcast)--------------------------- TIP 2: Don't 'kill -9' the postmaster
