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 (pgsql-hackers@postgresql.org)
To make changes to your subscription:

Reply via email to