Magnus Hagander <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> On Thu, Sep 27, 2007 at 03:21:59PM +0900, Hiroshi Saito wrote:
>> What do you think? 

> I will be offline for most of the time for a couple of days, so it will
> probably be until early next week before I can look at this. Just a FYI,
> but I'll be happy to look at it as soon as I can.

I like the FRONTEND solution, but not the EXEC_BACKEND stuff --- my
objection there is that this formulation hard-wires EXEC_BACKEND to get
defined only on a WIN32 build, which complicates testing that code on
other platforms.  (The whole point of the separate EXEC_BACKEND #define
was to let non-Windows developers test that code path, remember.)

My feeling is that we should continue to have EXEC_BACKEND driven by
CPPFLAGS, since that's easily tweaked on all platforms.

I'm still not clear on why anything needs to be done with
NON_EXEC_STATIC --- AFAICS that symbol is only referenced in half
a dozen backend-only .c files, so I think we can just leave it as
it stands.

In the interests of pushing 8.3beta forward, I'm going to go ahead
and commit this patch with the above mods; the buildfarm will let
us know if there's anything seriously wrong ...

                        regards, tom lane

---------------------------(end of broadcast)---------------------------
TIP 2: Don't 'kill -9' the postmaster

Reply via email to