Re: Semi-undocumented functions in libpq

From: Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us>
To: Martijn van Oosterhout <kleptog(at)svana(dot)org>
Cc: pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org
Subject: Re: Semi-undocumented functions in libpq
Date: 2006-05-04 19:21:56
Message-ID: 2724.1146770516@sss.pgh.pa.us
Views: Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email
Thread:
Lists: pgsql-hackers

Martijn van Oosterhout <kleptog(at)svana(dot)org> writes:
> On Thu, May 04, 2006 at 12:47:39PM -0400, Tom Lane wrote:
>> Already done no? (at least on the platforms where we know how to
>> restrict it)

> These functions are all in the exports.txt. I was just wondering if we
> wanted to cut that list down any more...

AFAIK, everything that is in exports.txt was put there for a reason.
I'm happy with the situation as it stands (other than wanting to enforce
the exports.txt restriction on more platforms ...)

Did we come to a decision about whether to implement symbol versioning
for libpq?

regards, tom lane

In response to

Responses

Browse pgsql-hackers by date

  From Date Subject
Next Message Tom Lane 2006-05-04 19:27:23 Re: pseudo-type record arguments for PL-functions
Previous Message Thomas Hallgren 2006-05-04 19:02:02 Re: pseudo-type record arguments for PL-functions