Robert Haas wrote:
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.
I suppose we should to establish politics for this case. Because any who see this and who have experience in Windows surprised by this. For windows any DLL it is like plugins which must use strict API for communications and resolving symbols. The situation is that in Postgres we have not API for extensions in the Windows terms. In future CMake will hide all this troubles in itself but if tell in truth I don't like this situation when any extension has access to any non-static symbols. However time to time we meet static function that we want to reusing in our extension and today I know only one decision - copy-paste. Without strict politics in this case we will be time to time meet new persons who ask this or similar question.
-- Yury Zhuravlev Postgres Professional: http://www.postgrespro.com The Russian Postgres Company -- Sent via pgsql-hackers mailing list (pgsql-hackers@postgresql.org) To make changes to your subscription: http://www.postgresql.org/mailpref/pgsql-hackers
