On Mon, Oct 17, 2016 at 4:42 PM, Tom Lane <t...@sss.pgh.pa.us> wrote: > Robert Haas <robertmh...@gmail.com> writes: >> On Mon, Oct 17, 2016 at 4:11 PM, Tom Lane <t...@sss.pgh.pa.us> wrote: >>> As for the core problem, I wonder why we aren't recommending that >>> third-party modules be built using the same infrastructure contrib >>> uses, rather than people ginning up their own infrastructure and >>> then finding out the hard way that that means they need PGDLLEXPORT >>> marks. > >> So, they'd need to generate export files somehow? > > My point is that that's a solved problem. Perhaps the issue is that > we haven't made our src/tools/msvc infrastructure available for outside > use in the way that we've exported our Unix build infrastructure through > PGXS. But if so, I should think that working on that is the thing to do.
Yeah, I don't know. For my money, decorating the function definitions in place seems easier than having to maintain a separate export list, especially if it can be hidden under the carpet using the existing stupid macro tricks. But I am not a Windows expert. -- Robert Haas EnterpriseDB: http://www.enterprisedb.com The Enterprise PostgreSQL Company -- Sent via pgsql-hackers mailing list (email@example.com) To make changes to your subscription: http://www.postgresql.org/mailpref/pgsql-hackers