On Fri, Nov 18, 2016 at 2:51 AM, Michael Paquier
<michael.paquier@gmail.com> wrote:
> On Thu, Nov 17, 2016 at 8:12 AM, Robert Haas <robertmhaas@gmail.com> wrote:
>> So, the problem isn't Darwin-specific. I experimented with this on
>> Linux and found Linux does the same thing with libpgcommon_srv.a that
>> macOS does: a file in the archive that is totally unused is omitted
>> from the postgres binary. In Linux, however, that doesn't prevent
>> pgcrypto from compiling anyway. It does, however, prevent it from
>> working. Instead of failing at compile time with a complaint about
>> missing symbols, it fails at load time. I think that's because macOS
>> has -bundle-loader and we use it; without that, I think we'd get the
>> same behavior on macOS that we get on Windows.
>
> Yes, right. I recall seeing the regression tests failing with pgcrypto
> when doing that. Though I did not recall if this was specific to macos
> or Linux when I looked again at this patch yesterday. When testing
> again yesterday I was able to make the tests of pgcrypto to pass, but
> perhaps my build was not in a clean state...
>
>> 1. Rejigger things so that we don't build libpgcommon_srv.a in the
>> first place, and instead add $(top_builddir)/src/common to
>> src/backend/Makefile's value of SUBDIRS. With appropriate adjustments
>> to src/common/Makefile, this should allow us to include all of the
>> object files on the linker command line individually instead of
>> building an archive library that is then used only for the postgres
>> binary itself anyway. Then, things wouldn't get dropped.
>>
>> 2. Just postpone committing this patch until we're ready to use the
>> new code in the backend someplace (or add a dummy reference to it
>> someplace).
>
> At the end this refactoring makes sense because it will be used in the
> backend with the SCRAM engine, so we could just wait for 2 instead of
> having some workarounds. This is dropping the ball for later and there
> will be already a lot of work for the SCRAM core part, though I don't
> think that the SHA2 refactoring will change much going forward.
>
> Option 3 would be to do things the patch does it, aka just compiling
> pgcrypto using the source files directly and put a comment to revert
> that once the APIs are used in the backend. I can guess that you don't
> like that.
Nothing more will likely happen in this CF, so I have moved it to
2017-01 with the same status of "Needs Review".
--
Michael