Re: Extensions vs. shared procedural language handler functions

From: Andrew Dunstan <andrew(at)dunslane(dot)net>
To: Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us>
Cc: Dimitri Fontaine <dimitri(at)2ndQuadrant(dot)fr>, Peter Eisentraut <peter_e(at)gmx(dot)net>, pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org
Subject: Re: Extensions vs. shared procedural language handler functions
Date: 2011-03-05 17:32:32
Message-ID: 4D7273B0.9010402@dunslane.net
Views: Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email
Thread:
Lists: pgsql-hackers

On 03/05/2011 12:17 PM, Tom Lane wrote:
> Dimitri Fontaine<dimitri(at)2ndQuadrant(dot)fr> writes:
>> Tom Lane<tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us> writes:
>>> The only easy fix I can see at the moment is to arbitrarily create two
>>> pg_proc entries --- they can both point at the same C function, but
>>> there need to be two of 'em.
>> So for 9.1, I think you took the simplest path available.
> It's never that easy :-(. I've been trying to figure out why frogmouth
> (Windows/cygwin buildfarm member) suddenly started failing:
>

It's mingw, not cygwin (brolga is the cygwin animal, and it doesn't
build with python.)

But good catch on the problem.

FYI, I'm working on the MSVC issues.

cheers

andrew

In response to

Responses

Browse pgsql-hackers by date

  From Date Subject
Next Message Andres Freund 2011-03-05 17:37:30 Re: Alpha4 release blockers (was Re: wrapping up this CommitFest)
Previous Message Yeb Havinga 2011-03-05 17:25:31 Re: Sync Rep v19