Re: narwhal and PGDLLIMPORT

On Tue, Feb 4, 2014 at 12:34 PM, Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us> wrote:
> Andrew Dunstan <andrew(at)dunslane(dot)net> writes:
>> If someone volunteered to pay for the storage, I'd be prepared to make
>> some time to create an AMI to reduce the startup time dramatically.
>> Basically it would be "boot the AMI and start testing your patches". I'd
>> even make it as friendly as possible for people who don't like to get
>> too far from unix-ish environments.
>
> My own opinion is that I've already wasted untold man-hours thanks to
> the random porting problems induced by Windows, a platform that I never
> have and never will care about personally. I will *not* spend my own
> time doing tests that someone else could do. If we can't get some
> effort contributed by someone who does use that platform, I'm personally
> prepared to declare the entire damn thing no longer supported.

You know, I would really prefer to just stick a PGDLLIMPORT on this
place and any others that need it, and any others that come up, than
turn this into a political football. Having to sprinkle PGDLLIMPORT
on the handful of variables that are accessed by contrib modules is,
indeed, annoying. But it's not any more annoying than twelve other
things that I have to do as a committer, like remembering to bump
whichever of catversion, the xlog page magic, and the control data
version are relevant to a particular commit, knowing which particular
SGML files have to build standalone, and enforcing the project's code
formatting, comment, and documentation conventions on everyone who
submits a patch. So acting as if this particular annoyance is somehow
unique or a good reason to desupport what is despite all of our
misgivings one of our most popular platforms doesn't impress me one
bit.

--
Robert Haas
EnterpriseDB: http://www.enterprisedb.com
The Enterprise PostgreSQL Company