Re: narwhal and PGDLLIMPORT

Dave Page <dpage(at)pgadmin(dot)org> writes:
> On Sun, Feb 2, 2014 at 1:03 AM, Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us> wrote:
>> I think we should give serious consideration to desupporting this
>> combination so that we can get rid of the plague of PGDLLIMPORT
>> marks.

> No objection here - though I should point out that it's not been
> offline for a long time (aside from a couple of weeks in January) -
> it's been happily building most pre-9.2 branches for ages. 9.1 seems
> to be stuck, along with HEAD, and I forgot to add 9.3. I'm in the
> process of cleaning that up as time allows, but am happy to drop it
> instead if we no longer want to support anything that old. We
> certainly don't use anything resembling that config for the EDB
> installer builds.

Further discussion pointed out that currawong, for example, seems to
want PGDLLIMPORT markings but is able to get by without them in
some cases that narwhal evidently doesn't like. So at this point,
desupporting narwhal's configuration is clearly premature --- we
should instead be looking into exactly what is causing the different
cases to fail or not fail.

I still have hopes that we might be able to get rid of PGDLLIMPORT
marks, but by actually understanding why they seem to be needed in
some cases and not others, not by just arbitrarily dropping support.

In the meantime, please do get HEAD running again on that machine.

regards, tom lane