On 04/15/2014 10:17 PM, Tom Lane wrote:
>> > I actually think we should *add* a LIBPQEXPORT that handles this for
>> > libpq, much like PGDLLEXPORT does for postgres(.exe). And in the
>> > process, rename PGDLLEXPORT to POSTGRESEXPORT or PGSERVEREXPORT or
>> > something.
> My reaction to that is "n
Peter Eisentraut writes:
> Let me point out again that my patch doesn't actually do anything about
> PGDLLEXPORT or the like. It just adds automatic prototypes into
> PG_FUNCTION_INFO_V1, to reduce compiler warnings in extensions and
> reduce some boilerplate in general.
Hmm ... for some reason
On 4/14/14, 3:28 PM, Peter Eisentraut wrote:
> On 4/4/14, 10:07 AM, Andres Freund wrote:
>> If
>> somebody previously tried to do the correct thing and attached
>> PGDLLEXPORT to their own *function* prototoype, it would cause problems
>> now.
>
> What is the difference (on affected platforms) bet
Craig Ringer writes:
> On 04/15/2014 03:39 AM, Tom Lane wrote:
>> I still wish we could get rid of this problem by fixing the Windows build
>> recipes so that the PGDLLEXPORT marking wasn't needed. We proved to
>> ourselves recently that getting rid of PGDLLIMPORT on global variables
>> wouldn't
On 04/15/2014 03:39 AM, Tom Lane wrote:
> I still wish we could get rid of this problem by fixing the Windows build
> recipes so that the PGDLLEXPORT marking wasn't needed. We proved to
> ourselves recently that getting rid of PGDLLIMPORT on global variables
> wouldn't work, but I'm not sure that
Peter Eisentraut writes:
> What is the difference (on affected platforms) between
> Datum funcname(PG_FUNCTION_ARGS);
> and writing (effectively)
> PGDLLEXPORT Datum funcname(PG_FUNCTION_ARGS);
> Datum funcname(PG_FUNCTION_ARGS);
> or for that matter
> Datum funcname(PG_FUNCTION_ARGS);
> PGDL
On 4/4/14, 10:07 AM, Andres Freund wrote:
> If
> somebody previously tried to do the correct thing and attached
> PGDLLEXPORT to their own *function* prototoype, it would cause problems
> now.
What is the difference (on affected platforms) between
Datum funcname(PG_FUNCTION_ARGS);
and writing (e
On 2014-02-17 10:30:16 -0300, Alvaro Herrera wrote:
> Tom Lane wrote:
> > Peter Eisentraut writes:
> > > On 2/15/14, 10:22 AM, Tom Lane wrote:
> > >> Yes it does; people who fail to remove their manual externs will get
> > >> Windows-only build failures (or at least warnings; it's not very clear
>
Tom Lane wrote:
> Peter Eisentraut writes:
> > On 2/15/14, 10:22 AM, Tom Lane wrote:
> >> Yes it does; people who fail to remove their manual externs will get
> >> Windows-only build failures (or at least warnings; it's not very clear
> >> which declaration will win).
>
> > The manual externs and
Peter Eisentraut writes:
> On 2/15/14, 10:22 AM, Tom Lane wrote:
>> Yes it does; people who fail to remove their manual externs will get
>> Windows-only build failures (or at least warnings; it's not very clear
>> which declaration will win).
> The manual externs and the automatically provided on
On 2/15/14, 10:22 AM, Tom Lane wrote:
> Peter Eisentraut writes:
>> On 1/15/14, 12:41 AM, Tom Lane wrote:
>>> Meh. I don't think that extension authors are really going to appreciate
>>> changing from "thou shalt declare all thy functions" to "thou shalt
>>> declare none of them".
>
>> This patc
Peter Eisentraut writes:
> On 1/15/14, 12:41 AM, Tom Lane wrote:
>> Meh. I don't think that extension authors are really going to appreciate
>> changing from "thou shalt declare all thy functions" to "thou shalt
>> declare none of them".
> This patch does no such thing.
Yes it does; people who
On 1/15/14, 12:41 AM, Tom Lane wrote:
> Meh. I don't think that extension authors are really going to appreciate
> changing from "thou shalt declare all thy functions" to "thou shalt
> declare none of them".
This patch does no such thing.
> If the code were such that it wouldn't matter
> whether
On 2/15/14, 8:51 AM, Andres Freund wrote:
> Based on those comments and the lack of counter arguments after a month
> I am going to mark the patch as rejected.
Actually, I was waiting for that PGDLLIMPORT thread to sort itself out
before tackling this.
--
Sent via pgsql-hackers mailing list (p
Hi,
On 2014-01-15 00:41:41 -0500, Tom Lane wrote:
> Peter Eisentraut writes:
> > This idea has appeared at least twice now, in
> > http://www.postgresql.org/message-id/1386301050.2743.17.ca...@vanquo.pezone.net
> > and http://www.postgresql.org/message-id/52d25aa2.50...@2ndquadrant.com .
> > E
Peter Eisentraut writes:
> This idea has appeared at least twice now, in
> http://www.postgresql.org/message-id/1386301050.2743.17.ca...@vanquo.pezone.net
> and http://www.postgresql.org/message-id/52d25aa2.50...@2ndquadrant.com .
> Even if it doesn't help with Windows issues, as discussed in t
16 matches
Mail list logo
