On 2014-02-03 22:23:16 +0800, Craig Ringer wrote: > On 02/03/2014 06:37 PM, Andres Freund wrote: > > I think that'd be an exercise in futility. We're not talking about a > > general purpose library here, where I agree -fvisibility=hidden is a > > useful thing, but about the backend. We'd break countless extensions > > people have written. Most of those have been authored on *nix. > > To make any form of sense we'd need to have a really separate API > > layer between internal/external stuff. That doesn't seem likely to > > arrive anytime soon, if ever. > > I think all that would achieve is that we'd regularly need to backpatch > > visibility fixes. And have countless pointless flames about which > > variables to expose. > > Fair point. If we're not going to define a proper API, then export > control is not useful. And since there isn't a proper API, nor any on > the cards, _that_ is a reasonable reason to just export all.
We have a (mostly) proper API. Just not an internal/external API split. Greetings, Andres Freund -- Andres Freund http://www.2ndQuadrant.com/ PostgreSQL Development, 24x7 Support, Training & Services -- Sent via pgsql-hackers mailing list (pgsql-hackers@postgresql.org) To make changes to your subscription: http://www.postgresql.org/mailpref/pgsql-hackers
