On Wed, 25 Aug 2021 at 22:36, Magnus Hagander <mag...@hagander.net> wrote:
> On Wed, Aug 25, 2021 at 4:06 PM Robert Haas <robertmh...@gmail.com> wrote: > > > > On Tue, Aug 24, 2021 at 5:06 PM Chapman Flack <c...@anastigmatix.net> > wrote: > > > The thing is, I think I have somewhere a list of all the threads on > this > > > topic that I've read through since the first time I had to come with > my own > > > hat in hand asking for a PGDLLIMPORT on something, years ago now, and > > > I don't think I have ever seen one where it was as uncontroversial > > > as you suggest. > > > > It does tend to be controversial, but I think that's basically only > > because Tom Lane has reservations about it. I think if Tom dropped his > > opposition to this, nobody else would really care. And I think that > > would be a good thing for the project. > > > I have only one consideration about it, and that's a technical one :) > > Does this in some way have an effect on the size of the binary and/or > the time it takes to load it? > On *nix, no. On Windows, very, very minimally. We *should* be looking into making private symbols we can't make non-static have hidden visibility at link time, i.e. be DSO-private. This can have a huge impact on link-time optimisation and inlining. But doing so is quite orthogonal to the matter of fixing a linkage issue on Windows. By making select symbols hidden we'd be *reducing* the exposed set of functions and data symbols in a disciplined and progressive way on all platforms. Useful but different.
