| From: | Bruce Momjian <bruce(at)momjian(dot)us> |
|---|---|
| To: | Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us> |
| Cc: | Julien Rouhaud <rjuju123(at)gmail(dot)com>, Michael Paquier <michael(at)paquier(dot)xyz>, pgsql-hackers(at)lists(dot)postgresql(dot)org |
| Subject: | Re: Mark all GUC variable as PGDLLIMPORT |
| Date: | 2021-08-23 14:36:17 |
| Message-ID: | 20210823143617.GC31379@momjian.us |
| Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
| Thread: | |
| Lists: | pgsql-hackers |
On Mon, Aug 23, 2021 at 10:22:51AM -0400, Tom Lane wrote:
> Bruce Momjian <bruce(at)momjian(dot)us> writes:
> > On Mon, Aug 23, 2021 at 10:15:04AM -0400, Tom Lane wrote:
> >> By that argument, *every* globally-visible variable should be marked
> >> PGDLLIMPORT. But the mere fact that two backend .c files need to access
>
> > No, Julien says 99% need only the GUCs, so that is not the argument I am
> > making.
>
> That's a claim unbacked by any evidence that I've seen. More to
> the point, we already have a mechanism that extensions can/should
> use to read and write GUC settings, and it's not direct access.
So the problem is that extensions only _need_ to use that API on
Windows, so many initially don't, or that the API is too limited?
--
Bruce Momjian <bruce(at)momjian(dot)us> https://momjian.us
EDB https://enterprisedb.com
If only the physical world exists, free will is an illusion.
| From | Date | Subject | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Next Message | Julien Rouhaud | 2021-08-23 14:45:19 | Re: Mark all GUC variable as PGDLLIMPORT |
| Previous Message | Tom Lane | 2021-08-23 14:22:51 | Re: Mark all GUC variable as PGDLLIMPORT |