Craig Ringer <craig@2ndquadrant.com> writes:
> On 18 October 2016 at 04:11, Tom Lane <tgl@sss.pgh.pa.us> wrote:
>> As for the core problem, I wonder why we aren't recommending that
>> third-party modules be built using the same infrastructure contrib
>> uses, rather than people ginning up their own infrastructure and
>> then finding out the hard way that that means they need PGDLLEXPORT
>> marks.
> Effectively, "PGXS for Windows".
Yeah.
> I've kind of been hoping the CMake work would make the whole mess of
> Perl build stuff go away. CMake would solve this quite neatly since we
> can bundle CMake parameters file for inclusion in other projects and
> could also tell pg_config how to point to it. Extensions then become
> trivial CMake projects.
Agreed, it'd be wise not to put any effort into that until we see
whether the CMake conversion succeeds.
regards, tom lane
