On 01/05/2014 10:32 PM, Craig Ringer wrote:
> Hi all
>
> Out of personal interest (in pain and suffering) I was recently looking
> into how to compile extensions out-of-tree on Windows using Visual
> Studio (i.e. no PGXS).
>
> It looks like the conventional answer to this is "Do a source build of
> PG, compile your ext in-tree in contrib/, and hope the result is binary
> compatible with release PostgreSQL builds for Windows". Certainly that's
> how I've been doing it to date.
>
> How about everyone else here? Does anyone actually build and distribute
> extensions out of tree at all?
>
> I'm interested in making the Windows installer distributions a bit more
> extension dev friendly. In particular, I'd really like to see EDB's
> Windows installers include the libintl.h for the included libintl, since
> its omission, combined with Pg being built with ENABLE_NLS, tends to
> break things horribly. Users can always undefine ENABLE_NLS, but it's an
> unnecessary roadblock.
>
> Are there any objections from -hackers to including 3rd party headers
> for libs we expose in our public headers in the binary distribution?
>
> Other than bundling 3rd party headers, any ideas/suggestions for how we
> might make ext building saner on Windows?
>
If you're bundling a DLL then I don't see why the corresponding header
file shouldn't be included also.
cheers
andrew