| From: | Robert Haas <robertmhaas(at)gmail(dot)com> |
|---|---|
| To: | Chapman Flack <chap(at)anastigmatix(dot)net> |
| Cc: | Peter Eisentraut <peter(dot)eisentraut(at)enterprisedb(dot)com>, Julien Rouhaud <rjuju123(at)gmail(dot)com>, Bruce Momjian <bruce(at)momjian(dot)us>, Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us>, Michael Paquier <michael(at)paquier(dot)xyz>, PostgreSQL Hackers <pgsql-hackers(at)lists(dot)postgresql(dot)org> |
| Subject: | Re: Mark all GUC variable as PGDLLIMPORT |
| Date: | 2021-08-24 20:31:32 |
| Message-ID: | CA+Tgmoa=936bFBvUy=CXumyS0Tv9RLFtesQOVX9Ep=y=Sn=L5Q@mail.gmail.com |
| Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
| Thread: | |
| Lists: | pgsql-hackers |
On Tue, Aug 24, 2021 at 3:36 PM Chapman Flack <chap(at)anastigmatix(dot)net> wrote:
> Peter may have advocated for that kind of across-the-board adoption;
> my leaning is more to add an API that /can/ be adopted, initially with
> separately-linked extensions as the audience. Nothing would stop it being
> used in core as well, but no reason to change any site where it did not
> offer an advantage.
>
> I generally tend to be an incrementalist.
Sure, me too, but the point for me is that there doesn't seem to be a
shred of a reason to go this way at all. We've turned a discussion
about adding PGDLLIMPORT, which ought to be totally uncontroversial,
into some kind of a discussion about adding an API layer that no one
wants to prevent a hypothetical failure mode not in evidence.
--
Robert Haas
EDB: http://www.enterprisedb.com
| From | Date | Subject | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Next Message | Chapman Flack | 2021-08-24 21:06:54 | Re: Mark all GUC variable as PGDLLIMPORT |
| Previous Message | Daniel Gustafsson | 2021-08-24 19:41:58 | Re: [PATCH] Disable bgworkers during servers start in pg_upgrade |