Hi.
----- Original Message -----
From: "Tom Lane" <tgl@sss.pgh.pa.us>
> Magnus Hagander <magnus@hagander.net> writes:
>> On Thu, Sep 27, 2007 at 03:21:59PM +0900, Hiroshi Saito wrote:
>>> What do you think?
>
>> I will be offline for most of the time for a couple of days, so it will
>> probably be until early next week before I can look at this. Just a FYI,
>> but I'll be happy to look at it as soon as I can.
>
> I like the FRONTEND solution, but not the EXEC_BACKEND stuff --- my
> objection there is that this formulation hard-wires EXEC_BACKEND to get
> defined only on a WIN32 build, which complicates testing that code on
> other platforms. (The whole point of the separate EXEC_BACKEND #define
> was to let non-Windows developers test that code path, remember.)
Ah yes, I also worried that a little change might affect other platforms by
the complexity of the action. we memorable it..
>
> My feeling is that we should continue to have EXEC_BACKEND driven by
> CPPFLAGS, since that's easily tweaked on all platforms.
>
> I'm still not clear on why anything needs to be done with
> NON_EXEC_STATIC --- AFAICS that symbol is only referenced in half
> a dozen backend-only .c files, so I think we can just leave it as
> it stands.
Although I am attached by the reason it happen the problem in a reference
relation by windows, main() which it is called thinks in original that it is good
by "non static". I look at that "non static ..main()" fully operates by FreeBSD.
Does it influence performance?
>
> In the interests of pushing 8.3beta forward, I'm going to go ahead
> and commit this patch with the above mods; the buildfarm will let
> us know if there's anything seriously wrong ...
Yeah, since it becomes better. thanks!
Regards,
Hiroshi Saito