Re: Discontent with development process (was:Re: pgaccess

On Tue, 2002-05-14 at 04:03, Tom Lane wrote:
> Lamar Owen <lamar(dot)owen(at)wgcr(dot)org> writes:
> > Although this config file stuff is small potatoes compared to the
> > Win32 stuff as recently discussed. And for that, please understand
> > that most of the developers here consider Win32 an inferior server
> > platform. In fact, Win32 _is_ an inferior server platform, at least
> > in my opinion. But, if you want to do the work, and it doesn't break
> > my non-Win32 server build, by all means go for it.
>
> Note that "doesn't break non-Win32 builds" is not really the standard
> that will get applied. Ongoing readability and maintainability of the
> codebase is a very high priority in my eyes, and I think in the eyes
> of most of the key developers. To the extent that Win32 support can
> be added without hurting those goals, I have nothing against it.
> I'll even put up with localized ugliness (see the BeOS support hacks
> for an example of what I'd call localized ugliness). But I get unhappy
> when there's airy handwaving about moving all static variables into some
> global data structure,

What would your opinion be of some hack with macros, like

#if (Win32 or THREADED)
#define GLOBAL_ pg_globals.
#else
#define GLOBAL_
#endif

and then use global variables as

GLOBAL_globvar

At least in my opinion that would increase both readability and
maintainability.

> to take just one of the points that were under
> discussion last week. That'd be a big maintainability penalty IMHO.

-----------------
Hannu