On Fri, Jun 3, 2016 at 1:55 PM, Robert Haas <robertmh...@gmail.com> wrote:

> 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.

​Typo, was thinking "we export this for others to consume"...

> > 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 find it a stretch that there is intent involved here.​  Your comments
below further that belief.

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.
Different but related.

​I'm sure the opinion I've expressed has supporters but their isn't enough
bashing of us by the community at large that this is likely to get the
decision makers to switch their feelings.

David J.

Reply via email to