On 25 November 2016 at 07:36, Michael Paquier <michael.paqu...@gmail.com> wrote: > On Thu, Nov 24, 2016 at 11:01 PM, Magnus Hagander <mag...@hagander.net> wrote: >> On Thu, Nov 24, 2016 at 2:58 PM, Craig Ringer <cr...@2ndquadrant.com> wrote: >> My guess is that PGDLLIMPORT has been added explicitly when somebody needed >> it for something, without any actual thought. I can't say I see any reason >> not to export the other ones as well -- more that maybe there are even more >> that are needed? > > Yes, more or less. The reasoning behind at least the PostmasterPID bit is > that: > https://www.postgresql.org/message-id/CAB7nPqS_=14krcdch6nyrsw8c58j1cwxv6qcvs7yp-6tthq...@mail.gmail.com > That resulted in cac83219. > > The other ones could perhaps be marked with PGDLLIMPORT. Now usually > we need a use-case behind this change, and there are not that many > hackers on Windows doing much plugin development.
Exactly, that's why nobody's been shouting yet. The use case is is exactly the same as the use case for these vars existing. IsBackgroundWorker in particular makes no sense to have at all if it isn't exported, and the only reason nobody's complaining is that nobody's building cassert binaries under Windows or has tried to write anything that has behaviour that cares if it's in a bgworker or not. PGDLLIMPORT is free, so the question should be "is there a reason not to add it here?". -- Craig Ringer http://www.2ndQuadrant.com/ PostgreSQL Development, 24x7 Support, Training & Services -- Sent via pgsql-hackers mailing list (pgsql-hackers@postgresql.org) To make changes to your subscription: http://www.postgresql.org/mailpref/pgsql-hackers
