Re: Do we really want to migrate plproxy and citext intoPG core distribution? - Mailing list pgsql-hackers

From Marko Kreen
Subject Re: Do we really want to migrate plproxy and citext intoPG core distribution?
Date
Msg-id e51f66da0807280603k5cbdc805m4554c39e043fc636@mail.gmail.com
Whole thread Raw
In response to Re: Do we really want to migrate plproxy and citext intoPG core distribution?  ("Marko Kreen" <markokr@gmail.com>)
List pgsql-hackers
On 7/28/08, Marko Kreen <markokr@gmail.com> wrote:
> On 7/25/08, Hiroshi Saito <z-saito@guitar.ocn.ne.jp> wrote:
>  >  I tackled with hope temporarily. It seems that some adjustment is still
>  > required.
>  >  http://winpg.jp/~saito/pg_work/plproxy/
>  >  However, windows user desires to use. Of course, it is also me.
>  >  Regards,
>  >  Hiroshi Saito
>
> Thanks, I applied the patch to CVS, with minor changes:
>  - Use HAVE_SYS_SELECT_H instead of WIN32 for <sys/select.h>
>  - Do SHLIB_LINK += instead of separate var.
>
>  Could you please test the attached patch or CVS HEAD,
>  whether everything works fine now?

One more change - I replaced __attribute__((dllimport)) with PGDLLIMPORT,
which seems more standard.

-- 
marko


pgsql-hackers by date:

Previous
From: "Marko Kreen"
Date:
Subject: Re: Do we really want to migrate plproxy and citext intoPG core distribution?
Next
From: Andrew Dunstan
Date:
Subject: Re: [PATCHES] odd output in restore mode