Skip site navigation (1) Skip section navigation (2)

Re: Trim the Fat (Was: Re: Open 7.3 items )

From: Brett Schwarz <brett_schwarz(at)yahoo(dot)com>
To: Andrew Sullivan <andrew(at)libertyrms(dot)info>
Cc: PostgreSQL-development <pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org>
Subject: Re: Trim the Fat (Was: Re: Open 7.3 items )
Date: 2002-07-31 13:10:59
Message-ID: 1028121060.22621.40.camel@thor (view raw or flat)
Thread:
Lists: pgsql-hackers
I too do not like alot of bloat in the distribution, but I also agree
with what Andrew is saying.

Currently, at the FTP site, you can download the whole tar file, or in 4
separate tarballs. How hard would it be to create a separate tarball for
client related packages? I am not sure if this would be a *great*
solution, but it might be a good compromise.

    --brett


On Wed, 2002-07-31 at 10:22, Andrew Sullivan wrote:
> On Wed, Jul 31, 2002 at 02:08:33PM -0300, Marc G. Fournier wrote:
> > On Wed, 31 Jul 2002, Tom Lane wrote:
> 
> > > One reason for wanting to integrate libpqxx is that I don't think we'll
> > > find out anything about its portability until we get a lot of people
> > > trying to build it.  If it's a separate distro that won't happen quickly.
> > 
> > Who cares?  Those that need a C++ interface will know where to find it,
> > and will report bugs that they have ... why should it be tested on every
> > platform when we *might* only have those on the Linux platform using it?
> 
> This seems a bad argument.  You can't say "we support interface xyz"
> and never test it on anything except i80x86 Linux.  Somebady comes
> along and tries to make it go on Solaris, and it doesn't work: poof,
> the cross-platform reputation that you and other have worked hard to
> burnish goes away.  Never mind that it's only a client library.
> 
> Besides, more generally, Postgres already has a reputation as being
> difficult to install.  The proposal to separate out all the
> "non-basics" (I'm not even sure how one would draw that line: maybe a
> server-only package and a client-library package run through GBorg?)
> would mean that anyone wanting to do something moderately complicated
> would have a yet higher hurdle.  Isn't that a problem?
> 
> A  
> 
> -- 
> ----
> Andrew Sullivan                               87 Mowat Avenue 
> Liberty RMS                           Toronto, Ontario Canada
> <andrew(at)libertyrms(dot)info>                              M6K 3E3
>                                          +1 416 646 3304 x110
> 
> 
> ---------------------------(end of broadcast)---------------------------
> TIP 6: Have you searched our list archives?
> 
> http://archives.postgresql.org
-- 
Brett Schwarz
brett_schwarz AT yahoo.com


In response to

pgsql-hackers by date

Next:From: Thomas LockhartDate: 2002-07-31 14:01:49
Subject: Re: WAL file location
Previous:From: Teodor SigaevDate: 2002-07-31 12:54:27
Subject: Query parser?

Privacy Policy | About PostgreSQL
Copyright © 1996-2014 The PostgreSQL Global Development Group