| From: | Andres Freund <andres(at)2ndquadrant(dot)com> |
|---|---|
| To: | Craig Ringer <craig(at)2ndquadrant(dot)com> |
| Cc: | Ashesh Vashi <ashesh(dot)vashi(at)enterprisedb(dot)com>, Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us>, PostgreSQL Hackers <pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org> |
| Subject: | Re: narwhal and PGDLLIMPORT |
| Date: | 2014-02-03 14:25:14 |
| Message-ID: | 20140203142514.GD1225@awork2.anarazel.de |
| Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
| Thread: | |
| Lists: | pgsql-hackers |
On 2014-02-03 22:23:16 +0800, Craig Ringer wrote:
> On 02/03/2014 06:37 PM, Andres Freund wrote:
> > I think that'd be an exercise in futility. We're not talking about a
> > general purpose library here, where I agree -fvisibility=hidden is a
> > useful thing, but about the backend. We'd break countless extensions
> > people have written. Most of those have been authored on *nix.
> > To make any form of sense we'd need to have a really separate API
> > layer between internal/external stuff. That doesn't seem likely to
> > arrive anytime soon, if ever.
> > I think all that would achieve is that we'd regularly need to backpatch
> > visibility fixes. And have countless pointless flames about which
> > variables to expose.
>
> Fair point. If we're not going to define a proper API, then export
> control is not useful. And since there isn't a proper API, nor any on
> the cards, _that_ is a reasonable reason to just export all.
We have a (mostly) proper API. Just not an internal/external API split.
Greetings,
Andres Freund
--
Andres Freund http://www.2ndQuadrant.com/
PostgreSQL Development, 24x7 Support, Training & Services
| From | Date | Subject | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Next Message | Tom Lane | 2014-02-03 14:25:57 | Re: narwhal and PGDLLIMPORT |
| Previous Message | Fujii Masao | 2014-02-03 14:24:55 | Re: pg_basebackup and pg_stat_tmp directory |