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