On Wed, Jun 1, 2016 at 12:24 PM, Alvaro Herrera <alvhe...@2ndquadrant.com> wrote: > Robert Haas wrote: >> On Wed, Jun 1, 2016 at 12:06 AM, Craig Ringer <cr...@2ndquadrant.com> wrote: >> > On 1 June 2016 at 11:48, Michael Paquier <michael.paqu...@gmail.com> wrote: >> >> Could it be possible to mark PostmasterPid with PGDLLIMPORT on HEAD >> >> and back-branches? >> > >> > Sounds sensible to me. >> >> I don't really want to set a precedent that we'll back-patch >> PGDLLIMPORT markings every time somebody needs a new symbol for some >> extension they are writing, but I don't mind changing this in master. > > I wonder why is that -- just to reduce the commit load? I don't think > this kind of change is likely to break anything, is it?
Probably not, but yes, I do want to reduce the commit load. I also think that we essentially have a contract with our users to limit what we back-patch to critical bug fixes and security fixes. When we don't do that, people start asking to have individual fixes cherry-picked instead of just upgrading, and that's not good. We may know that such changes are low-risk, but that doesn't mean everyone else does. -- Robert Haas EnterpriseDB: http://www.enterprisedb.com The Enterprise PostgreSQL Company -- Sent via pgsql-hackers mailing list (pgsql-hackers@postgresql.org) To make changes to your subscription: http://www.postgresql.org/mailpref/pgsql-hackers
