I wrote: > But I'd understand if you think that this is too much code churn for too > little > benefit, even if it could be considered a clean-up. > > In that case, I'd argue that in the sample in doc/src/sgml/xfunc.sgml > the function definitions should be changed to read > > PGDLLEXPORT Datum foo(PG_FUNCTION_ARGS) > > instead of > > Datum foo(PG_FUNCTION_ARGS) > > because without that the sample fails if you try to build it with MSVC > like the stackoverflow question did.
Since I didn't hear from you, I assume that you are not in favour of removing the SQL function declarations from contrib. So I went ahead and wrote a patch to add PGDLLEXPORT to the C function sample. While at it, I noticed that there are no instructions for building and linking C functions with MSVC, so I have added a patch for that as well. Yours, Laurenz Albe
0001-Add-PGDLLEXPORT-to-sample-C-function.patch
Description: 0001-Add-PGDLLEXPORT-to-sample-C-function.patch
0002-Add-instructions-for-building-C-functions-with-MSVC.patch
Description: 0002-Add-instructions-for-building-C-functions-with-MSVC.patch
-- Sent via pgsql-hackers mailing list (pgsql-hackers@postgresql.org) To make changes to your subscription: http://www.postgresql.org/mailpref/pgsql-hackers
