Re:In Praise of PostgreSQL
by anarazel on Friday August 06, 2021 @07:30PM
(#28094025)
> 1. Postgres doesn't really didn't want to be statically compiled, according to [1].
Right. There's a lot of features that'll flat out not work if you somehow compile it statically. I don't think it's a useful thing to run tests with a version of postgres built like that. Nor does it really solve anything - postgres will still require a bunch of on-disk files.
You shouldn't need have to do so anyway - you can relocate the postgres installation itself when compiled normally. Binaries like postgres will try to find the files they need relative to their own location if not found at the builtin location.
Of course, libraries that PG binaries dynamically link to need to be somewhere in the library path. If you need to adjust that you can do it by adding rpaths to the binaries/libraries to additional locations, so you don't need to adjust LD_LIBRARY_PATH.
Re:In Praise of PostgreSQL
by sa46 on Friday August 06, 2021 @07:41PM
(#28094101)
I ended up skipping static compilation for the reasons you outlined (not necessary). I packaged everything up in a directory and used LD_LIBRARY_PATH. I linked to a sketch on GitHub in a sibling comment.
Right. There's a lot of features that'll flat out not work if you somehow compile it statically. I don't think it's a useful thing to run tests with a version of postgres built like that. Nor does it really solve anything - postgres will still require a bunch of on-disk files.
You shouldn't need have to do so anyway - you can relocate the postgres installation itself when compiled normally. Binaries like postgres will try to find the files they need relative to their own location if not found at the builtin location.
Of course, libraries that PG binaries dynamically link to need to be somewhere in the library path. If you need to adjust that you can do it by adding rpaths to the binaries/libraries to additional locations, so you don't need to adjust LD_LIBRARY_PATH.