| From: | Craig Ringer <craig(at)2ndquadrant(dot)com> |
|---|---|
| To: | Andres Freund <andres(at)2ndquadrant(dot)com>, Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us> |
| Cc: | PostgreSQL Hackers <pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org> |
| Subject: | Re: PGDLLEXPORTing all GUCs? |
| Date: | 2014-05-07 14:26:21 |
| Message-ID: | 536A428D.50805@2ndquadrant.com |
| Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
| Thread: | |
| Lists: | pgsql-hackers |
On 05/07/2014 09:45 PM, Andres Freund wrote:
> I think what Craig actually tries to propose is to mark all GUCs
> currently exported in headers PGDLLIMPORT. Currently it's easy to have
> extensions that work on sane systems but not windows. If they're already
> exposed in headers I don't think changes get any harder just because thy
> also can get used on windows...
Yes, rather.
Exporting GUCs that're currently static wouldn't make sense.
I'm just taking about making what works on !windows work on Windows. If
a GUC is declared extern in a header, it should be PGDLLIMPORT.
--
Craig Ringer http://www.2ndQuadrant.com/
PostgreSQL Development, 24x7 Support, Training & Services
| From | Date | Subject | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Next Message | Tom Lane | 2014-05-07 14:29:36 | Re: PGDLLEXPORTing all GUCs? |
| Previous Message | Petr Jelinek | 2014-05-07 14:25:46 | Re: bgworker crashed or not? |