Re: User locks code
От | Bruce Momjian |
---|---|
Тема | Re: User locks code |
Дата | |
Msg-id | 200108232334.f7NNYeC23884@candle.pha.pa.us обсуждение исходный текст |
Ответ на | RE: User locks code ("Mikheev, Vadim" <vmikheev@SECTORBASE.COM>) |
Список | pgsql-hackers |
> > No, you were clear. > > So I missed your "near-zero cost" sentence. OK. > > My assumption is that once you link that code into > > the backend, the entire backend is GPL'ed and any other > > application code you link into it is also (stored procedures, > > triggers, etc.) I don't think your client application will > > be GPL'ed, assuming you didn't link in libreadline. > > Application would explicitly call user_lock() functions in > queries, so issue is still not clear for me. And once again - Well, yes, it calls user_lock(), but the communication is not OS-linked, it is linked over a network socket, so I don't think the GPL spreads over a socket. Just as telnet'ing somewhere an typing 'bash' doesn't make your telnet GPL'ed, so I think the client code is safe. To the client, the backend is just returning information. You don't really link to the query results. > compare complexities of contrib/userlock and backend' userlock > code: what's reason to cover contrib/userlock by GPL? Only because Massimo prefers it. I can think of no other reason. It clearly GPL-stamps any backend that links it in. -- Bruce Momjian | http://candle.pha.pa.us pgman@candle.pha.pa.us | (610) 853-3000+ If your life is a hard drive, | 830 Blythe Avenue + Christ can be your backup. | Drexel Hill, Pennsylvania19026
В списке pgsql-hackers по дате отправления: