Tom Lane-2 wrote > Andres Freund < > andres@
> > writes: >> On 2014-05-07 09:35:06 -0400, Tom Lane wrote: >>> Craig Ringer < > craig@ > > writes: >>>> Is there any reason _not_ to PGDLLEXPORT all GUCs, other than cosmetic >>>> concerns? > >>> That seems morally equivalent to "is there a reason not to make every >>> static variable global?". > >> I think what Craig actually tries to propose is to mark all GUCs >> currently exported in headers PGDLLIMPORT. > > There are few if any GUCs that aren't exposed in headers, just so that > guc.c can communicate with the owning modules. That doesn't mean that > we want everybody in the world messing with them. > > To my mind, we PGDLLEXPORT some variable only after deciding that yeah, > we're okay with having third-party modules touching that. Craig's > proposal is to remove human judgement from that process. So third-party modules that use GUC's that are not PGDLLEXPORT are doing so improperly - even if it works for them because they only care/test non-Windows platforms? David J. -- View this message in context: http://postgresql.1045698.n5.nabble.com/PGDLLEXPORTing-all-GUCs-tp5802901p5802955.html Sent from the PostgreSQL - hackers mailing list archive at Nabble.com. -- Sent via pgsql-hackers mailing list (pgsql-hackers@postgresql.org) To make changes to your subscription: http://www.postgresql.org/mailpref/pgsql-hackers
