Re: [HACKERS] dynloader.h missing in prebuilt package for Windows?

On Wed, Jan 20, 2016 at 1:37 PM, Michael Paquier wrote: > On Wed, Jan 20, 2016 at 1:34 PM, Bruce Momjian wrote: >> On Mon, Jan 4, 2016 at 09:50:40PM -0800, Michael Paquier wrote: >>> On Tue, Jan 5, 2016 at 2:27 PM, Tom Lane

Re: [HACKERS] dynloader.h missing in prebuilt package for Windows?

On Mon, Jan 4, 2016 at 09:50:40PM -0800, Michael Paquier wrote: > On Tue, Jan 5, 2016 at 2:27 PM, Tom Lane wrote: > > Michael Paquier writes: > >> The patch would put the buildfarm in red as it is incomplete anyway, > >> with MSVC what is used

Re: [HACKERS] dynloader.h missing in prebuilt package for Windows?

On Wed, Jan 20, 2016 at 1:34 PM, Bruce Momjian wrote: > On Mon, Jan 4, 2016 at 09:50:40PM -0800, Michael Paquier wrote: >> On Tue, Jan 5, 2016 at 2:27 PM, Tom Lane wrote: >> > Michael Paquier writes: >> >> The patch would put the

Re: [HACKERS] dynloader.h missing in prebuilt package for Windows?

On 01/05/2016 09:18 AM, Chapman Flack wrote: > On 01/05/2016 12:53 AM, Michael Paquier wrote: > >> That's not a mandatory fix, but I think we had better do it. As long >> as dynloader.h is copied in include/, there is no need to keep the >> tweak of dfmgr.c to include the definitions those

Re: [HACKERS] dynloader.h missing in prebuilt package for Windows?

On 01/05/2016 12:53 AM, Michael Paquier wrote: > That's not a mandatory fix, but I think we had better do it. As long > as dynloader.h is copied in include/, there is no need to keep the > tweak of dfmgr.c to include the definitions those routines. Looking at what you changed, all becomes clear.

Re: [HACKERS] dynloader.h missing in prebuilt package for Windows?

On Tue, Jan 5, 2016 at 2:50 PM, Michael Paquier wrote: > On Tue, Jan 5, 2016 at 2:27 PM, Tom Lane wrote: >> Michael Paquier writes: >>> The patch would put the buildfarm in red as it is incomplete anyway, >>> with MSVC

Re: [HACKERS] dynloader.h missing in prebuilt package for Windows?

On Tue, Jan 5, 2016 at 11:24 PM, Chapman Flack wrote: > On 01/05/2016 09:18 AM, Chapman Flack wrote: >> On 01/05/2016 12:53 AM, Michael Paquier wrote: >> >>> That's not a mandatory fix, but I think we had better do it. As long >>> as dynloader.h is copied in include/, there

Re: [HACKERS] dynloader.h missing in prebuilt package for Windows?

On Wed, Jan 6, 2016 at 7:47 AM, Michael Paquier wrote: > By the way, it is definitely wiser to wait for after the release of > 9.5.0 to push that or something similar... And I have added an entry in the CF app, let's not lose track of this item:

Re: [HACKERS] dynloader.h missing in prebuilt package for Windows?

Michael Paquier writes: > The patch would put the buildfarm in red as it is incomplete anyway, > with MSVC what is used instead of dynloader.h is > port/dynloader/win32.h. Instead of this patch I would be incline to > remove the #define stuff with dynloader.h that use

Re: [HACKERS] dynloader.h missing in prebuilt package for Windows?

On Tue, Jan 5, 2016 at 2:27 PM, Tom Lane wrote: > Michael Paquier writes: >> The patch would put the buildfarm in red as it is incomplete anyway, >> with MSVC what is used instead of dynloader.h is >> port/dynloader/win32.h. Instead of this patch I

Re: [HACKERS] dynloader.h missing in prebuilt package for Windows?

On 01/05/16 00:18, Michael Paquier wrote: > with MSVC what is used instead of dynloader.h is > port/dynloader/win32.h. Seems like a good catch - AFAICS, what happens with port/dynloader is that for 12 different OSes, there's an .h file there to be copied _renamed to dynloader.h_ into the build

Re: [HACKERS] dynloader.h missing in prebuilt package for Windows?

On Mon, Jan 4, 2016 at 9:37 PM, Chapman Flack wrote: > On 01/05/16 00:18, Michael Paquier wrote: > >> with MSVC what is used instead of dynloader.h is >> port/dynloader/win32.h. > > Seems like a good catch - AFAICS, what happens with port/dynloader > is that for 12

Re: [HACKERS] dynloader.h missing in prebuilt package for Windows?

On Mon, Jan 4, 2016 at 10:06 AM, Bruce Momjian wrote: > On Mon, Jan 4, 2016 at 12:59:26PM -0500, Tom Lane wrote: >> Bruce Momjian writes: >> > On Sun, Jan 3, 2016 at 12:35:02PM -0500, Tom Lane wrote: >> >> If we're willing to allow 9.4.6 to install different

Re: [HACKERS] dynloader.h missing in prebuilt package for Windows?

On Sun, Jan 3, 2016 at 12:35:02PM -0500, Tom Lane wrote: > Robert Haas writes: > > On Dec 31, 2015, at 1:04 PM, Bruce Momjian wrote: > >> Let's hold this for 9.5.1 and all minor releases will get it at the same > >> time. > > > I vote for going ahead

Re: [HACKERS] dynloader.h missing in prebuilt package for Windows?

Bruce Momjian writes: > On Sun, Jan 3, 2016 at 12:35:02PM -0500, Tom Lane wrote: >> If we're willing to allow 9.4.6 to install different files than 9.4.5 >> does, I don't see why it's a problem for 9.5.1. But having said that, >> I agree that this seems pretty low-risk, and so

Re: [HACKERS] dynloader.h missing in prebuilt package for Windows?

On Mon, Jan 4, 2016 at 12:59:26PM -0500, Tom Lane wrote: > Bruce Momjian writes: > > On Sun, Jan 3, 2016 at 12:35:02PM -0500, Tom Lane wrote: > >> If we're willing to allow 9.4.6 to install different files than 9.4.5 > >> does, I don't see why it's a problem for 9.5.1. But

Re: [HACKERS] dynloader.h missing in prebuilt package for Windows?

On Dec 31, 2015, at 1:04 PM, Bruce Momjian wrote: >> On Thu, Dec 31, 2015 at 12:50:13AM -0500, Bruce Momjian wrote: >>> On Wed, Dec 30, 2015 at 11:57:45PM -0500, Tom Lane wrote: >>> Bruce Momjian writes: Oops. Once this patch is applied, it is only going

Re: [HACKERS] dynloader.h missing in prebuilt package for Windows?

Robert Haas writes: > On Dec 31, 2015, at 1:04 PM, Bruce Momjian wrote: >> Let's hold this for 9.5.1 and all minor releases will get it at the same >> time. > I vote for going ahead with this at once. It seems low risk, and having 9.5.1 > install

Re: [HACKERS] dynloader.h missing in prebuilt package for Windows?

On Thu, Dec 31, 2015 at 12:50:13AM -0500, Bruce Momjian wrote: > On Wed, Dec 30, 2015 at 11:57:45PM -0500, Tom Lane wrote: > > Bruce Momjian writes: > > > Oops. Once this patch is applied, it is only going to take effect when > > > someone _installs_ Postgres. Even an initdb

Re: CurrentExtensionObject was Re: [HACKERS] dynloader.h missing in prebuilt package for Windows?

On Thu, Dec 31, 2015 at 04:41:44PM -0500, Chapman Flack wrote: > I suppose there really won't be a way to do this with reliability > unless someday extensions can hook the dependency infrastructure, > as you mentioned in passing in an earlier message. > > That sounds like a longer discussion. But

Re: CurrentExtensionObject was Re: [HACKERS] dynloader.h missing in prebuilt package for Windows?

On 12/31/15 16:13, Tom Lane wrote: >> I see that 9.5.0 already adds PGDLLIMPORT on the global variable >> creating_extension, but CurrentExtensionObject on the very next >> line of extension.h still doesn't have it. > > Why would you need to access that? This returns to the earlier question

CurrentExtensionObject was Re: [HACKERS] dynloader.h missing in prebuilt package for Windows?

While on the subject of things that could make it or not into 9.5.?, I see that 9.5.0 already adds PGDLLIMPORT on the global variable creating_extension, but CurrentExtensionObject on the very next line of extension.h still doesn't have it. The simplest way I've come up with in Windows to

Re: CurrentExtensionObject was Re: [HACKERS] dynloader.h missing in prebuilt package for Windows?

Chapman Flack writes: > I see that 9.5.0 already adds PGDLLIMPORT on the global variable > creating_extension, but CurrentExtensionObject on the very next > line of extension.h still doesn't have it. Why would you need to access that? regards, tom

Re: [HACKERS] dynloader.h missing in prebuilt package for Windows?

Bruce Momjian wrote: > On Tue, Dec 29, 2015 at 02:08:19PM -0500, Bruce Momjian wrote: > > In the Windows MSVC build, we handle pg_config_os.h in the Perl scripts, > > but not dynloader.h. The attached patch copies the process used for > > pg_config_os.h to handle dynloader.h. I believe this is

Re: [HACKERS] dynloader.h missing in prebuilt package for Windows?

On Wed, Dec 30, 2015 at 11:57:45PM -0500, Tom Lane wrote: > Bruce Momjian writes: > > Oops. Once this patch is applied, it is only going to take effect when > > someone _installs_ Postgres. Even an initdb will not add the file. > > This means that upgrading to the next minor

Re: [HACKERS] dynloader.h missing in prebuilt package for Windows?

Bruce Momjian writes: > Oops. Once this patch is applied, it is only going to take effect when > someone _installs_ Postgres. Even an initdb will not add the file. > This means that upgrading to the next minor release will _not_ fix this. Uh, what? Surely an upgrade to a

Re: [HACKERS] dynloader.h missing in prebuilt package for Windows?

On Wed, Dec 30, 2015 at 11:18:45PM -0300, Alvaro Herrera wrote: > > This suggests that we perhaps should consider this for 9.5.0, and that > > your hack will have to be active until 9.4 gets to end-of-life, or > > perhaps 9.5 if we can't get this into 9.5.0. People who are using 9.5 > > Beta or

Re: [HACKERS] dynloader.h missing in prebuilt package for Windows?

On Tue, Dec 29, 2015 at 02:08:19PM -0500, Bruce Momjian wrote: > In the Windows MSVC build, we handle pg_config_os.h in the Perl scripts, > but not dynloader.h. The attached patch copies the process used for > pg_config_os.h to handle dynloader.h. I believe this is the only *.h > file that has

Re: [HACKERS] dynloader.h missing in prebuilt package for Windows?

On 12/30/15 20:40, Bruce Momjian wrote: > your hack will have to be active until 9.4 gets to end-of-life, or > perhaps 9.5 if we can't get this into 9.5.0. People who are using 9.5 > Beta or RC will still not have the file, meaning 9.5 end-of-life might > still be a requirement. ... by which

Re: [HACKERS] dynloader.h missing in prebuilt package for Windows?

On Sun, Dec 6, 2015 at 07:16:24PM +, Olson, Ken wrote: > I have downloaded a fresh copy of the Win x64 installer > (postgresql-9.4.5-2-windows-x64.exe) from > http://www.enterprisedb.com/products-services-training/pgdownload. The output > of pg_config and assodicated directory listing of

Re: [HACKERS] dynloader.h missing in prebuilt package for Windows?

On Tue, Dec 29, 2015 at 03:01:55PM -0500, Chapman Flack wrote: > On 12/29/15 14:08, Bruce Momjian wrote: > > > This should fix the PL/Java Windows build problem. I don't think I will > > get this patch into 9.5.0 but will put it in after 9.5.0 is released and > > it will appear in all the next

Re: [HACKERS] dynloader.h missing in prebuilt package for Windows?

On 12/29/15 14:08, Bruce Momjian wrote: > This should fix the PL/Java Windows build problem. I don't think I will > get this patch into 9.5.0 but will put it in after 9.5.0 is released and > it will appear in all the next minor version releases, including 9.5.1, > which should happen in the next

Re: [HACKERS] dynloader.h missing in prebuilt package for Windows?

, December 05, 2015 4:07 PM To: Olson, Ken Subject: Re: [HACKERS] dynloader.h missing in prebuilt package for Windows? Ken, Do you have a moment to respond to Bruce's questions here, about what files *are* put into $INCLUDEDIR_SERVER by the Windows PG installer you've used, and just what

Re: [HACKERS] dynloader.h missing in prebuilt package for Windows?

On Fri, Dec 4, 2015 at 07:09:03PM -0500, Chapman Flack wrote: > On 12/04/15 12:56, Bruce Momjian wrote: > > > > OK, good logical reason to install dynloader.h on Windows. > > Ah! Thanks. I was starting to wonder whether I had said something wrong > and been sent to the bit bucket within my

Re: [HACKERS] dynloader.h missing in prebuilt package for Windows?

On Sat, Nov 14, 2015 at 07:11:32PM -0500, Chapman Flack wrote: > I use the PG dynloader because, hey, you guys have already done the work > of abstracting up from 12 different platforms' variations on dlopen, and > it seems smarter to stand on your shoulders and not reinvent that. The > one minor

Re: [HACKERS] dynloader.h missing in prebuilt package for Windows?

On 12/04/15 12:56, Bruce Momjian wrote: > > OK, good logical reason to install dynloader.h on Windows. Ah! Thanks. I was starting to wonder whether I had said something wrong and been sent to the bit bucket within my first two -hackers posts. :) > What do we need to do to close this item?

[HACKERS] dynloader.h missing in prebuilt package for Windows?

Hi, This is my first -hackers message; I've recently been putting some effort into PL/Java since this summer (my employer published a restated IP policy that seems much friendlier toward FOSS contributions on my own time, so my PL/Java contributions will be seen to have ticked up since then).

Re: [HACKERS] dynloader.h missing in prebuilt package for Windows?

Chapman Flack writes: > Ken Olson has helped me greatly by testing on Windows, and he noticed > something odd: #include fails on Windows when building > an extension out-of-tree, simply because that file isn't there. While it may indeed be a packaging bug that that file

Re: [HACKERS] dynloader.h missing in prebuilt package for Windows?

On 11/14/15 18:18, Tom Lane wrote: > While it may indeed be a packaging bug that that file isn't installed, > the reason why nobody noticed before is that there doesn't seem to be > any good reason for anything except dfmgr.c to include it. What's the > context? One of the most long-standing