Re: narwhal and PGDLLIMPORT

On 02/05/2014 06:29 AM, Tom Lane wrote:
> I had been okay with the manual PGDLLIMPORT-sprinkling approach
> (not happy with it, of course, but prepared to tolerate it) as long
> as I believed the buildfarm would reliably tell us of the need for
> it.  That assumption has now been conclusively disproven, though.
> The question therefore becomes, what are we going to do instead?
> "Keep on doing what we were doing" doesn't strike me as an acceptable
> answer.

I'm in complete agreement here. Silent failures we can't test for that
might sneak data corruption in are not cool.

I'll have a look into ways to making sure that globals with incorrect
linkage fail at runtime link time, as is the case for functions. I won't
be able to spend much time on it immediately; will take a quick look and
if I don't find anything, will follow up post-CF4.

I'm kind of horrified that the dynamic linker doesn't throw its toys
when it sees this.

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