Re: PGDLLEXPORTing all GUCs?

Поиск
Список
Период
Сортировка
От Craig Ringer
Тема Re: PGDLLEXPORTing all GUCs?
Дата
Msg-id 536AD650.9000400@2ndquadrant.com
обсуждение исходный текст
Ответ на Re: PGDLLEXPORTing all GUCs?  (Tom Lane <tgl@sss.pgh.pa.us>)
Ответы Re: PGDLLEXPORTing all GUCs?
Список pgsql-hackers
On 05/08/2014 12:21 AM, Tom Lane wrote:
> If Craig has a concrete argument why all GUCs should be accessible
> to external modules, then let's see it

Because they already are.

The only difference here is that that access works only on !windows.

I agree (strongly) that we should have a better defined API in terms of
what is "accessible to external modules" and what is not. However, we
don't, as you stressed just that in a prior discussion when I raised the
idea of using -fvisbility=hidden to limit access to some symbols.

Given that we don't have any kind of exernal vs internal API division,
why pretend we do just for one platform?

As for just GUCs: I suggested GUCs because GUCs are what's been coming
up repeatedly as an actual practical issue. I'd be quite happy to
PGDLLEXPORT all extern vars, but I was confident that'd be rejected for
aesthetic reasons, and thought that exporting all GUCs would be a
reasonable compromise.

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



В списке pgsql-hackers по дате отправления:

Предыдущее
От: Peter Geoghegan
Дата:
Сообщение: Re: proposal: Set effective_cache_size to greater of .conf value, shared_buffers
Следующее
От: Craig Ringer
Дата:
Сообщение: Re: bgworker crashed or not?