Scott Ribe <scott_ribe@elevated-dev.com> writes:
> On Mar 22, 2015, at 4:43 PM, Tom Lane <tgl@sss.pgh.pa.us> wrote:
>> So this works only if your libpq.dylib is actually installed at the
>> location that was expected when you built it. The recipe you gave
>> looks like it should have done that, but I'm suspicious that the
>> answer is somewhere near here.
> Oh, take me out back and shoot me now ;-)
Uh huh :-(
> It's questionable whether the PG executables should be built with full or relative paths to the libs, both have their
owndisadvantages. But might be worth considering --relative-rpath someday? Or an option to link the frickin' static
librariesin and avoid the whole issue of mismatches.
We're entirely at the mercy of the platform's dynamic loader when it comes
to things like this. I don't think I trust Darwin's loader with relative
paths; though come to think of it, Linux's loader may be no better. Way
too many opportunities to screw up there.
As for static libraries, there are good reasons why those aren't superior
solutions. Red Hat for instance has a blanket policy against shipping
static libraries (with only very narrow exceptions), and I believe the
same is true of many other vendors.
regards, tom lane