Re: PGDLLEXPORTing all GUCs?

Tom Lane-2 wrote
> Andres Freund <

> andres@

> > writes:
>> On 2014-05-07 09:35:06 -0400, Tom Lane wrote:
>>> Craig Ringer <

> craig@

> > writes:
>>>> Is there any reason _not_ to PGDLLEXPORT all GUCs, other than cosmetic
>>>> concerns?
>
>>> That seems morally equivalent to "is there a reason not to make every
>>> static variable global?".
>
>> I think what Craig actually tries to propose is to mark all GUCs
>> currently exported in headers PGDLLIMPORT.
>
> There are few if any GUCs that aren't exposed in headers, just so that
> guc.c can communicate with the owning modules. That doesn't mean that
> we want everybody in the world messing with them.
>
> To my mind, we PGDLLEXPORT some variable only after deciding that yeah,
> we're okay with having third-party modules touching that. Craig's
> proposal is to remove human judgement from that process.

So third-party modules that use GUC's that are not PGDLLEXPORT are doing so
improperly - even if it works for them because they only care/test
non-Windows platforms?

David J.

--
View this message in context: http://postgresql.1045698.n5.nabble.com/PGDLLEXPORTing-all-GUCs-tp5802901p5802955.html
Sent from the PostgreSQL - hackers mailing list archive at Nabble.com.