----- Original Message ----- From: "Tom Lane" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>

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.)

Ah yes, I also worried that a little change might affect other platforms by the complexity of the action. we memorable it..

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.

Although I am attached by the reason it happen the problem in a reference relation by windows, main() which it is called thinks in original that it is good by "non static". I look at that "non static ..main()" fully operates by FreeBSD. Does it influence performance?

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 ...

Yeah, since it becomes better. thanks!

Hiroshi Saito

---------------------------(end of broadcast)---------------------------
TIP 5: don't forget to increase your free space map settings

Reply via email to