On 18.09.25 17:15, Jacob Champion wrote:
On Thu, Sep 18, 2025 at 3:03 AM Peter Eisentraut <[email protected]> wrote:
Here is some relevant documentation that suggests that this is the
correct approach:
https://github.com/mingw-w64/mingw-w64/blob/master/mingw-w64-headers/crt/_mingw.h.in#L476
This also says that the default is 0 anyway, so it's not clear whether
this is even useful anymore. The commit that introduced this (commit
b787c554c26) is from 2022, so it's not that long ago. (It appears to be
some old mingw vs. new mingw issue?)
So if MinGW already defines its own version of this symbol [1], how
does this work in practice? Would it actually do anything if we
assigned -1 instead?
Yes, if you do that, the pg_amcheck test 'schema exclusion pattern
overrides all inclusion patterns' fails, which has an entirely plausible
causality.
As to how it works, I'm not sure, but I suppose the linker somehow
arranges the initializations in the right order.
