From: | Julien Rouhaud <rjuju123(at)gmail(dot)com> |
---|---|
To: | Michael Paquier <michael(at)paquier(dot)xyz> |
Cc: | pgsql-hackers(at)lists(dot)postgresql(dot)org |
Subject: | Re: Mark all GUC variable as PGDLLIMPORT |
Date: | 2021-08-22 12:07:43 |
Message-ID: | 20210822120743.lvazjchtns5sezb2@nol |
Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
Thread: | |
Lists: | pgsql-hackers |
On Sun, Aug 22, 2021 at 08:51:26PM +0900, Michael Paquier wrote:
> On Sun, Aug 22, 2021 at 04:10:33PM +0800, Julien Rouhaud wrote:
> > This topic has been raised multiple time over the years, and I don't see any
> > objection to add such an annotation at least for all GUC variables (either the
> > direct variables or the indirect variables set during the hook execution), so
> > PFA a patch that takes care of all the GUC.
> >
> > I don't now if that's still an option at that point, but backporting to at
> > least pg14 if that patch is accepted would be quite helpful.
>
> These are usually just applied on HEAD
Yeah but 14 isn't released yet, and this is a really low risk change.
> , and on a parameter-basis based
> on requests from extension authors. If you wish to make your
> extensions able to work on Windows, that's a good idea, but I would
> recommend to limit this exercise to what's really necessary for your
> purpose.
I disagree. For random global variables I agree that we shouldn't mark them
all blindly, but for GUCs it's pretty clear that they're intended to be
accessible from any caller, including extensions. Why treating Windows as a
second-class citizen, especially when any change can only be used a year after
someone complained?
From | Date | Subject | |
---|---|---|---|
Next Message | Pavel Stehule | 2021-08-22 12:17:16 | Re: Mark all GUC variable as PGDLLIMPORT |
Previous Message | Michael Paquier | 2021-08-22 11:51:26 | Re: Mark all GUC variable as PGDLLIMPORT |