Re: Warning is adjusted of pgbench.
От | Hiroshi Saito |
---|---|
Тема | Re: Warning is adjusted of pgbench. |
Дата | |
Msg-id | 0ab301c7ffe7$70712520$c601a8c0@HP22720319231 обсуждение исходный текст |
Ответ на | Warning is adjusted of pgbench. ("Hiroshi Saito" <z-saito@guitar.ocn.ne.jp>) |
Ответы |
Re: Warning is adjusted of pgbench.
|
Список | pgsql-patches |
Hi. From: "Tom Lane" <tgl@sss.pgh.pa.us> > "Hiroshi Saito" <z-saito@guitar.ocn.ne.jp> writes: >>> Why do you need to #undef EXEC_BACKEND, and is there a specific reason for >>> removing the include of win32.h? > >> I put in in order to avoid -D of the Makefile. > > If that matters, the problem is that somebody put the wrong stuff in the > wrong include file. Backend-only things ought to go in postgres.h not > c.h. In particular this is wrongly placed: > > /* EXEC_BACKEND defines */ > #ifdef EXEC_BACKEND > #define NON_EXEC_STATIC > #else > #define NON_EXEC_STATIC static > #endif > > but AFAICS it doesn't affect anything that pgbench would care about. > So I'm wondering *exactly* what goes wrong if you don't #undef > EXEC_BACKEND in pgbench. > > As for the FRONTEND #define, that seems essential on Windows (and on no > other platform) because port/win32.h uses it. But putting the #define > into pgbench.c (and by implication into anything else we build on > Windows) sure seems like a broken approach. Where else could we put it? > It looks like right now that's left to the build system, which might or > might not be a good idea, but if it is a good idea then pgbench must be > getting missed. Perhaps instead postgres_fe.h should #define FRONTEND? Yes, I feared that the physique of a main part broke. Then, Magnus said the same suggestion as you. It seems that it needs to be brushup. I am going to improve by the reason referred to as that FRONTEND influences nmake (libpq) again. Probably, Mugnus is operating main part.? Thanks. Regards, Hiroshi Saito
В списке pgsql-patches по дате отправления: