| From: | Craig Ringer <craig(at)2ndquadrant(dot)com> |
|---|---|
| To: | Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us>, Robert Haas <robertmhaas(at)gmail(dot)com> |
| Cc: | Andrew Dunstan <andrew(at)dunslane(dot)net>, Andres Freund <andres(at)2ndquadrant(dot)com>, Amit Kapila <amit(dot)kapila16(at)gmail(dot)com>, pgsql-hackers <pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org> |
| Subject: | Re: narwhal and PGDLLIMPORT |
| Date: | 2014-02-05 04:07:57 |
| Message-ID: | 52F1B91D.8080902@2ndquadrant.com |
| Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
| Thread: | |
| Lists: | pgsql-hackers |
On 02/05/2014 06:29 AM, Tom Lane wrote:
> I had been okay with the manual PGDLLIMPORT-sprinkling approach
> (not happy with it, of course, but prepared to tolerate it) as long
> as I believed the buildfarm would reliably tell us of the need for
> it. That assumption has now been conclusively disproven, though.
> The question therefore becomes, what are we going to do instead?
> "Keep on doing what we were doing" doesn't strike me as an acceptable
> answer.
I'm in complete agreement here. Silent failures we can't test for that
might sneak data corruption in are not cool.
I'll have a look into ways to making sure that globals with incorrect
linkage fail at runtime link time, as is the case for functions. I won't
be able to spend much time on it immediately; will take a quick look and
if I don't find anything, will follow up post-CF4.
I'm kind of horrified that the dynamic linker doesn't throw its toys
when it sees this.
--
Craig Ringer http://www.2ndQuadrant.com/
PostgreSQL Development, 24x7 Support, Training & Services
| From | Date | Subject | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Next Message | Craig Ringer | 2014-02-05 04:09:25 | Re: narwhal and PGDLLIMPORT |
| Previous Message | Andrew Dunstan | 2014-02-05 04:00:30 | Re: narwhal and PGDLLIMPORT |