On Tue, Apr 8, 2008 at 3:10 PM, Bruce Momjian <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > Actually I was thinking more about disk footprint. Andrew's comment is > > correct if you work with statically linked code where the compiler pulls > > out only the needed .o files from a .a library, but that's pretty out of > > fashion these days. Most people are dealing with a monolithic libpq.so > > and might carp a bit if it gets 25% or 50% bigger for stuff that doesn't > > interest them.
on my box, the .so went from 118k to 175k. while this is significant in percentage terms, I don't think redhat is going to complain about 57k (correct me if I'm wrong here). > Also, if we add to libpq we have to document this new functionality. It > doesn't make sense to add to the API unless there is a significant > number of people who will use it. We are prepared to write the formal documentation if necessary (and whatever else, code comments and a proper regression test for example). I'll address the 'who will want to use it' in response to Tom's mail. merlin -- Sent via pgsql-hackers mailing list (pgsql-hackers@postgresql.org) To make changes to your subscription: http://www.postgresql.org/mailpref/pgsql-hackers
