Re: CurrentExtensionObject was Re: [HACKERS] dynloader.h missing in prebuilt package for Windows?

On Thu, Dec 31, 2015 at 04:41:44PM -0500, Chapman Flack wrote: > I suppose there really won't be a way to do this with reliability > unless someday extensions can hook the dependency infrastructure, > as you mentioned in passing in an earlier message. > > That sounds like a longer discussion. But

Re: CurrentExtensionObject was Re: [HACKERS] dynloader.h missing in prebuilt package for Windows?

On 12/31/15 16:13, Tom Lane wrote: >> I see that 9.5.0 already adds PGDLLIMPORT on the global variable >> creating_extension, but CurrentExtensionObject on the very next >> line of extension.h still doesn't have it. > > Why would you need to access that? This returns to the earlier question

CurrentExtensionObject was Re: [HACKERS] dynloader.h missing in prebuilt package for Windows?

While on the subject of things that could make it or not into 9.5.?, I see that 9.5.0 already adds PGDLLIMPORT on the global variable creating_extension, but CurrentExtensionObject on the very next line of extension.h still doesn't have it. The simplest way I've come up with in Windows to

Re: CurrentExtensionObject was Re: [HACKERS] dynloader.h missing in prebuilt package for Windows?

Chapman Flack writes: > I see that 9.5.0 already adds PGDLLIMPORT on the global variable > creating_extension, but CurrentExtensionObject on the very next > line of extension.h still doesn't have it. Why would you need to access that? regards, tom