On Wed, Jun 1, 2016 at 5:59 PM, David G. Johnston <david.g.johns...@gmail.com> wrote: > Maybe I don't understand PGDLLEXPORT...
We're talking about PGDLLIMPORT. > The PostgreSQL function/feature in question is already in place and can be > accessed by someone using Linux or other unix-like variant. But it cannot > be access by our Window's users because we failed to add a PGDLLEXPORT > somewhere. If it is our goal to treat Windows and Linux/Unix equally then > that discrepancy is on its face a bug. The fact we don't catch these until > some third-party points it out doesn't make it any less a bug. If we had a policy of putting PGDLLIMPORT on everything, I'd agree with you, but we clearly don't. Something's only a bug if we intended A but accidentally got B. If we intended and got A and somebody doesn't like that, that's not a bug; that's a difference of opinion. I personally feel that we should sprinkle PGDLLIMPORT markings onto a lot more things, but Tom Lane has opposed that at every turn. I hope we'll change our policy about that someday, but that's a different question from whether such changes should be back-patched. -- Robert Haas EnterpriseDB: http://www.enterprisedb.com The Enterprise PostgreSQL Company -- Sent via pgsql-hackers mailing list (pgsql-hackers@postgresql.org) To make changes to your subscription: http://www.postgresql.org/mailpref/pgsql-hackers
