Magnus Hagander <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> Michael Meskes wrote:
>> So, does an explicit export list help? If so I'm all for it. There is no
>> need to export all symbols. I always tried to keep the number of symbols
>> that get exported but are not needed low. So this will give the best
>> result possible.
> Yeah, it does seem to fix it.
That's very good news. If Michael can put together an export list
soon then we'll be in good shape.
Michael: you should bump the major version number of ecpglib when you do
this. Removing the not-officially-exported visible symbols *is* an ABI
break. You may think there isn't anything depending on them, but
remember how we thought that (twice) for libpq too. Bumping the major
version number will be cheap insurance against complaints later.
regards, tom lane
---------------------------(end of broadcast)---------------------------
TIP 1: if posting/reading through Usenet, please send an appropriate
subscribe-nomail command to [EMAIL PROTECTED] so that your
message can get through to the mailing list cleanly
