Re: Create function prototype as part of PG_FUNCTION_INFO_V1

On 4/4/14, 10:07 AM, Andres Freund wrote:
> If
> somebody previously tried to do the correct thing and attached
> PGDLLEXPORT to their own *function* prototoype, it would cause problems
> now.

What is the difference (on affected platforms) between

Datum funcname(PG_FUNCTION_ARGS);

and writing (effectively)

PGDLLEXPORT Datum funcname(PG_FUNCTION_ARGS);
Datum funcname(PG_FUNCTION_ARGS);

or for that matter

Datum funcname(PG_FUNCTION_ARGS);
PGDLLEXPORT Datum funcname(PG_FUNCTION_ARGS);


If there isn't a difference, then my patch is fine.  Otherwise, it might
be good to document the issues for extension authors.