Re: narwhal and PGDLLIMPORT
Craig Ringer <craig@2ndquadrant.com>
From: Craig Ringer <craig@2ndquadrant.com>
To: Andres Freund <andres@2ndquadrant.com>
Cc: Ashesh Vashi <ashesh.vashi@enterprisedb.com>,
Tom Lane <tgl@sss.pgh.pa.us>,
PostgreSQL Hackers <pgsql-hackers@postgresql.org>
Date: 2014-02-03T14:23:16Z
Lists: pgsql-hackers
Commits
Same data as JSON:
GET /api/v1/messages/:b64id/commits
the thread's linked commits as JSON, with link sources.
API reference →
-
MinGW: Link with shell32.dll instead of shfolder.dll.
- 53566fc0940c 9.5.0 cited
-
Centralize getopt-related declarations in a new header file pg_getopt.h.
- 60ff2fdd9970 9.4.0 cited
-
Get rid of use of dlltool in Mingw builds.
- 846e91e0223c 9.4.0 cited
-
Export a few more symbols required for test_shm_mq module.
- 7d7eee8bb702 9.4.0 cited
-
Export set_latch_on_sigusr1 symbol for Windows.
- 708c529c7fde 9.4.0 cited
-
Use SHGetFolderPath instead of SHGetSpecialFolderPath to find the
- 889f03812916 8.1.0 cited
On 02/03/2014 06:37 PM, Andres Freund wrote: > On 2014-02-03 12:00:40 +0800, Craig Ringer wrote: >> I think it's a good thing personally - we shouldn't be exporting every >> little internal var in the symbol table. >> >> If we built with -fvisibility=hidden on 'nix there'd be no need to >> complain about commits being on on 'nix then breaking on Windows, 'cos >> the 'nix build would break in the same place. That's all or nothing >> though, there's no "vars hidden, procs exported" option in gcc. > > I think that'd be an exercise in futility. We're not talking about a > general purpose library here, where I agree -fvisibility=hidden is a > useful thing, but about the backend. We'd break countless extensions > people have written. Most of those have been authored on *nix. > To make any form of sense we'd need to have a really separate API > layer between internal/external stuff. That doesn't seem likely to > arrive anytime soon, if ever. > I think all that would achieve is that we'd regularly need to backpatch > visibility fixes. And have countless pointless flames about which > variables to expose. Fair point. If we're not going to define a proper API, then export control is not useful. And since there isn't a proper API, nor any on the cards, _that_ is a reasonable reason to just export all. -- Craig Ringer http://www.2ndQuadrant.com/ PostgreSQL Development, 24x7 Support, Training & Services