Martijn van Oosterhout <kleptog@svana.org> writes:
> On Sat, Apr 15, 2006 at 12:12:53PM -0400, Tom Lane wrote:
>> Personally I've been wondering for some time why we use lorder/tsort
>> at all. Are there any platforms we support where this is still needed?
>> (Given the existence of circular references within libpq.a, one would
>> think that tsort wouldn't help such a platform anyway.)
> I've never worked with a system that cared about the order within
> libraries so I've never really experienced the problem. But I leave it
> in because I figure it must fix something for someone somewhere...
Well, I vote we take it out, which would eliminate these warnings
instead of just shorten them. On a platform where tsorting a non-shared
library's contents is actually essential, libpq.a would be useless
anyway because of the circular internal references. Presumably,
anyone who's using Postgres on such a platform only cares about the .so
library. So I don't see any point in including the tsort step.
(AFAIK we inherited the tsort stuff from Berkeley; it may have been
useful once upon a time, but that was a long time ago.)
regards, tom lane