On Mon, Feb 14, 2022 at 10:38 AM Tom Lane <t...@sss.pgh.pa.us> wrote: > Robert Haas <robertmh...@gmail.com> writes: > > I don't particularly like Chapman's solution, but given that you've > > repeatedly blocked every effort to just apply PGDLLIMPORT markings > > across the board, I'm not sure what the realistic alternative is. > > You do realize that I just have one vote in these matters? If I'm > outvoted then so be it. The impression I have though is that a > number of other people don't like the extra notational cruft either.
Hmm, I guess I'd need to know who those people are in order to be able to review their comments. I don't *like* the extra notational cruft, but applying it inconsistently isn't better than being consistent. As I see it, we have four choices: (1) apply PGDLLIMPORT markings relatively broadly so that people can get extensions to work on Windows, (2) continue to apply them inconsistently, thus slightly reducing notational clutter at the cost of breaking lots of extensions on Windows, (3) put some complex system in place like what Chapman proposes and get all extension authors to adopt it, and (4) remove the Windows port. To the best of my current knowledge, everyone other than you prefers (1), you prefer (2) or (4), and (3) is an attempt at compromise that is nobody's first choice. If that is correct, then I think we should do (1). If it's incorrect then I think we should do our best to find a choice other than (2) that does attract a consensus. The current situation, which is (2), must be the worst of all possible options because it manages to bother the people who dislike the clutter AND ALSO bother the people who want to have their extensions work on Windows. Any other choice has a chance of reaching a state where only one of those groups of people is annoyed. -- Robert Haas EDB: http://www.enterprisedb.com
