Re: narwhal and PGDLLIMPORT

On 2014-02-03 22:23:16 +0800, Craig Ringer wrote:
> On 02/03/2014 06:37 PM, Andres Freund wrote:
> > I think that'd be an exercise in futility. We're not talking about a
> > general purpose library here, where I agree -fvisibility=hidden is a
> > useful thing, but about the backend. We'd break countless extensions
> > people have written. Most of those have been authored on *nix.
> > To make any form of sense we'd need to have a really separate API
> > layer between internal/external stuff. That doesn't seem likely to
> > arrive anytime soon, if ever.
> > I think all that would achieve is that we'd regularly need to backpatch
> > visibility fixes. And have countless pointless flames about which
> > variables to expose.
> 
> Fair point. If we're not going to define a proper API, then export
> control is not useful. And since there isn't a proper API, nor any on
> the cards, _that_ is a reasonable reason to just export all.

We have a (mostly) proper API. Just not an internal/external API split.

Greetings,

Andres Freund

-- Andres Freund                       http://www.2ndQuadrant.com/PostgreSQL Development, 24x7 Support, Training &
Services