On Wed, Jun 1, 2016 at 5:59 PM, David G. Johnston
<david.g.johns...@gmail.com> wrote:
> Maybe I don't understand PGDLLEXPORT...

We're talking about PGDLLIMPORT.

> The PostgreSQL function/feature in question is already in place and can be
> accessed by someone using Linux or other unix-like variant.  But it cannot
> be access by our Window's users because we failed to add a PGDLLEXPORT
> somewhere.  If it is our goal to treat Windows and Linux/Unix equally then
> that discrepancy is on its face a bug.  The fact we don't catch these until
> some third-party points it out doesn't make it any less a bug.

If we had a policy of putting PGDLLIMPORT on everything, I'd agree
with you, but we clearly don't.  Something's only a bug if we intended
A but accidentally got B.  If we intended and got A and somebody
doesn't like that, that's not a bug; that's a difference of opinion.

I personally feel that we should sprinkle PGDLLIMPORT markings onto a
lot more things, but Tom Lane has opposed that at every turn.  I hope
we'll change our policy about that someday, but that's a different
question from whether such changes should be back-patched.

-- 
Robert Haas
EnterpriseDB: http://www.enterprisedb.com
The Enterprise PostgreSQL Company


-- 
Sent via pgsql-hackers mailing list (pgsql-hackers@postgresql.org)
To make changes to your subscription:
http://www.postgresql.org/mailpref/pgsql-hackers

Reply via email to