Re: Add missing PGDLLIMPORT markings

Robert Haas <robertmhaas(at)gmail(dot)com> writes:
> The issue we're going to run into is that a lot of extension authors
> like to call things that the core developers probably think they
> shouldn't. If we lock it down, we'll either be breaking a bunch of
> extensions that are doing sneaky things that somebody has managed to
> make work ... or we're going to be committing to an API that we don't
> really want to support.

> To be clear, I'm not saying you're wrong, just that it's going to be
> hard to change anything without making somebody unhappy.

Yeah. To do anything else than "export everything", we'd have to
engage in a long hard slog of negotiations over what we want to treat
as exported API and what we don't. From past experience with adding
PGDLLIMPORT markings piecemeal, that process would be never-ending,
because there would always be someone asking for access to something
else.

I don't really want to go back there. The current policy is
effectively that it's on extension developers to deal with it
when we change an API they depended on, and I'm content with that.
I don't buy that arguments like "maybe the compiler could
micro-optimize this a bit better if it weren't exported" should
drive our decision-making in this area.

regards, tom lane