Re: Mark all GUC variable as PGDLLIMPORT

On Tue, Aug 24, 2021 at 04:31:32PM -0400, Robert Haas wrote:
> On Tue, Aug 24, 2021 at 3:36 PM Chapman Flack <chap(at)anastigmatix(dot)net> wrote:
> > Peter may have advocated for that kind of across-the-board adoption;
> > my leaning is more to add an API that /can/ be adopted, initially with
> > separately-linked extensions as the audience. Nothing would stop it being
> > used in core as well, but no reason to change any site where it did not
> > offer an advantage.
> >
> > I generally tend to be an incrementalist.
>
> Sure, me too, but the point for me is that there doesn't seem to be a
> shred of a reason to go this way at all. We've turned a discussion
> about adding PGDLLIMPORT, which ought to be totally uncontroversial,
> into some kind of a discussion about adding an API layer that no one
> wants to prevent a hypothetical failure mode not in evidence.

+1

--
Bruce Momjian <bruce(at)momjian(dot)us> https://momjian.us
EDB https://enterprisedb.com

If only the physical world exists, free will is an illusion.