Re: Mark all GUC variable as PGDLLIMPORT

From: Julien Rouhaud <rjuju123(at)gmail(dot)com>
To: Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us>
Cc: Michael Paquier <michael(at)paquier(dot)xyz>, pgsql-hackers(at)lists(dot)postgresql(dot)org
Subject: Re: Mark all GUC variable as PGDLLIMPORT
Date: 2021-08-22 13:29:01
Message-ID: 20210822132901.ztlervolfdbqypw4@nol
Views: Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email
Lists: pgsql-hackers

On Sun, Aug 22, 2021 at 09:19:42AM -0400, Tom Lane wrote:
> Uh, no, it's exactly *not* clear. There are a lot of GUCs that are only
> of interest to particular subsystems. I do not see why being a GUC makes
> something automatically more interesting than any other global variable.
> Usually, the fact that one is global is only so the GUC machinery itself
> can get at it, otherwise it'd be static in the owning module.
> As for "extensions should be able to get at the values", the GUC machinery
> already provides uniform mechanisms for doing that safely. Direct access
> to the variable's internal value would be unsafe in many cases.

Then shouldn't we try to prevent direct access on all platforms rather than
only one?

In response to


Browse pgsql-hackers by date

  From Date Subject
Next Message Tom Lane 2021-08-22 13:58:03 Re: Allow parallel DISTINCT
Previous Message Tom Lane 2021-08-22 13:22:43 Re: Spelling change in LLVM 14 API