Re: why isn't libmysqld dynamically linked, was Re: why isn't mysqle a shared library?

[Ian Monroe]

On Sun, Sep 28, 2008 at 5:22 PM, Michael Widenius <monty@stripped> wrote:
>
> Hi!
>
>>>>>> "Ian" == Ian Monroe <ian@stripped> writes:
>
> <cut>
>
> Ian> Well thats all well and good, but lets remember the cost of static
> Ian> libraries in terms of maintenance, not being able to share read-only
> Ian> memory between processes and being much harder to update MySQL. Like
> Ian> I'm guessing everytime a Linux distro updates MySQL they will want to
> Ian> 'update' Amarok, or else there would be a mismatch between the MySQL
> Ian> built into Amarok and the data files it uses (though I'm not sure how
> Ian> likely a problem this actually is).
>
> For maintenence purposes static libraries are less error prone;  In
> other words, if you use static libraries in your application your are
> not depending on what version of the libraries the user has installed
> on his machine.
>
> For mysql the data files are not a problem;  Any newer version of
> MySQL can normally read any old version of the data tables.

MySQL does use various files like errmsg.sys, doesn't it? I did a
strace today since we're tracking down some crashes, it seems like it
opens some /usr/share type stuff. So at least in the normal Linux way
of doing things, it would be dependent on the system MySQL. (Or is
that what you were talking about.)


> The biggest benefits of shared libraries are less disk space and less
> overall memory footprint if a lot of running applications use the same
> libraries.

Yep.

> Regards,
> Monty
>

Ian