Re: Mark all GUC variable as PGDLLIMPORT

Andrew Dunstan <andrew(at)dunslane(dot)net> writes:
> On 3/30/22 14:37, Robert Haas wrote:
>> @RMT: Andres proposed upthread that we should plan to do this just
>> after feature freeze. Accordingly I propose to commit at least 0002
>> and perhaps 0001 if people want it just after feature freeze. I
>> therefore ask that the RMT either (a) regard this change as not being
>> a feature (and thus not subject to the freeze) or (b) give it a 1-day
>> extension. The reason for committing it just after freeze is to
>> minimize the number of conflicts that it creates for other patches.
>> The reason why that's probably an OK thing to do is that applying
>> PGDLLIMPORT markings is low-risk.

> WFM. I think Tom also has an item he wants to do right at the end of
> feature freeze.

Yeah, the frontend error message rework in [1]. That has exactly
the same constraint that it's likely to break other open patches,
so it'd be better to do it after the CF cutoff. I think that doing
that concurrently with Robert's thing shouldn't be too risky, because
it only affects frontend code while his patch should touch only backend.

regards, tom lane

[1] https://commitfest.postgresql.org/37/3574/