Re: narwhal and PGDLLIMPORT

On Sun, Feb 2, 2014 at 3:59 PM, Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us> wrote:
> Dave Page <dpage(at)pgadmin(dot)org> writes:
>> On Sun, Feb 2, 2014 at 1:03 AM, Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us> wrote:
>>> I think we should give serious consideration to desupporting this
>>> combination so that we can get rid of the plague of PGDLLIMPORT
>>> marks.
>
>> No objection here - though I should point out that it's not been
>> offline for a long time (aside from a couple of weeks in January) -
>> it's been happily building most pre-9.2 branches for ages. 9.1 seems
>> to be stuck, along with HEAD, and I forgot to add 9.3. I'm in the
>> process of cleaning that up as time allows, but am happy to drop it
>> instead if we no longer want to support anything that old. We
>> certainly don't use anything resembling that config for the EDB
>> installer builds.
>
> Further discussion pointed out that currawong, for example, seems to
> want PGDLLIMPORT markings but is able to get by without them in
> some cases that narwhal evidently doesn't like. So at this point,
> desupporting narwhal's configuration is clearly premature --- we
> should instead be looking into exactly what is causing the different
> cases to fail or not fail.
>
> I still have hopes that we might be able to get rid of PGDLLIMPORT
> marks, but by actually understanding why they seem to be needed in
> some cases and not others, not by just arbitrarily dropping support.
>
> In the meantime, please do get HEAD running again on that machine.

Done: http://www.pgbuildfarm.org/cgi-bin/show_log.pl?nm=narwhal&dt=2014-02-03%2009%3A26%3A43

It's not happy though :-(

--
Dave Page
Blog: http://pgsnake.blogspot.com
Twitter: @pgsnake

EnterpriseDB UK: http://www.enterprisedb.com
The Enterprise PostgreSQL Company