Magnus Hagander <mag...@hagander.net> writes: > On Wed, Aug 25, 2021 at 4:06 PM Robert Haas <robertmh...@gmail.com> wrote: >> It does tend to be controversial, but I think that's basically only >> because Tom Lane has reservations about it. I think if Tom dropped his >> opposition to this, nobody else would really care. And I think that >> would be a good thing for the project.
> But in particular, both on that argument, and on the general > maintenance argument, I have a very hard time seeing how exporting the > GUC variables would be any worse than exporting the many hundreds of > functions we already export. My beef about it has nothing to do with binary-size concerns, although that is an interesting angle. (I wonder whether marking a variable PGDLLIMPORT has any negative effect on the cost of accessing it from within the core code?) Rather, I'm unhappy with spreading even more Microsoft-droppings all over our source. If there were some way to just do this automatically for all global variables without any source changes, I'd be content with that. That would *really* make the platforms more nearly equivalent. regards, tom lane