On Thu, Feb 16, 2012 at 6:09 AM, Robert Haas <robertmh...@gmail.com> wrote: > On Fri, Feb 3, 2012 at 7:33 PM, Daniel Farina <dan...@heroku.com> wrote: >> Ah, yes, I think my optimizations were off when building, or >> something. I didn't get such verbosity at first, and then I remember >> doing something slightly different and then getting a lot of output. >> I didn't pay attention to the build size. I will investigate. > [...] >> >> I agree, I was about to say "what about a preprocessor hack..." after >> the last paragraph, but saw you beat me to the punch. I'll have a look soon. > > Ping!
Err, yes. Clearly I've managed to not do this, and not see your email until now. Here's what I intend to do: 1) Split the tables into another header file, per Tom's suggestion 2) #include those tables in pgport exactly once. Per Tom's objection that pgport is not always available in distributions, that is not the only way the table will be exposed, but as pgport is definitely built and available when building postgres proper. 3) Third-party projects and contribs should use the header file, and not libpgport It's still a bit awkward in that one is including something that's not really a "port" (except in the degenerate sense, as no system has these tables defined vs, say, gettimeofday, where Windows needs a port), but it's the only thing that I can see that is compiled once and can be linked against repeatedly in postgres's build without having to, say, directly cross-reference the pg_crc.o file (as seen in the two command line utilities that need crc). Thoughts? -- fdr -- Sent via pgsql-hackers mailing list (pgsql-hackers@postgresql.org) To make changes to your subscription: http://www.postgresql.org/mailpref/pgsql-hackers
