Re: narwhal and PGDLLIMPORT - Mailing list pgsql-hackers

From Tom Lane
Subject Re: narwhal and PGDLLIMPORT
Date
Msg-id 7336.1391579568@sss.pgh.pa.us
Whole thread Raw
In response to Re: narwhal and PGDLLIMPORT  (Craig Ringer <craig@2ndquadrant.com>)
Responses Re: narwhal and PGDLLIMPORT  (Craig Ringer <craig@2ndquadrant.com>)
Re: narwhal and PGDLLIMPORT  (Hiroshi Inoue <inoue@tpf.co.jp>)
Re: narwhal and PGDLLIMPORT  (Craig Ringer <craig@2ndquadrant.com>)
List pgsql-hackers
Craig Ringer <craig@2ndquadrant.com> writes:
> On 02/05/2014 06:29 AM, Tom Lane wrote:
>> I had been okay with the manual PGDLLIMPORT-sprinkling approach
>> (not happy with it, of course, but prepared to tolerate it) as long
>> as I believed the buildfarm would reliably tell us of the need for
>> it.  That assumption has now been conclusively disproven, though.

> I'm kind of horrified that the dynamic linker doesn't throw its toys
> when it sees this.

Indeed :-(.

The truly strange part of this is that it seems that the one Windows
buildfarm member that's telling the truth (or most nearly so, anyway)
is narwhal, which appears to have the oldest and cruftiest toolchain
of the lot.  I'd really like to come out the other end of this
investigation with a clear understanding of why the newer toolchains
are failing to report a link problem, and yet not building working
executables.
        regards, tom lane



pgsql-hackers by date:

Previous
From: James Sewell
Date:
Subject: PostgreSQL Failback without rebuild
Next
From: Amit Kapila
Date:
Subject: Re: Performance Improvement by reducing WAL for Update Operation