Re: Beta page (pdfs)

Tom Lane wrote:
> Greg Smith <greg(at)2ndquadrant(dot)com> writes:
> > Tom Lane wrote:
> >> The PDF format specs are public (and even an ISO standard now) --- but
> >> considering that 1.7 is only a couple of years old, it's fair to worry
> >> about how much software can read it successfully.
>
> > https://bugs.freedesktop.org/show_bug.cgi?id=20490 answers this question
> > suggesting a big thumbs-down,
>
> There's a version history at
> http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Portable_Document_Format#Versions
> that shows the main changes between successive PDF versions.
> I don't actually see much related to compression since 1.4,
> other than adding JPEG2000 image compression which would certainly
> not help any for our docs.
>
> So at this point I'm wondering if the reported size difference is
> really PDF-version-related or just indicates inefficiency in the output
> from pdfjadetex. If the latter, it might be fixable without creating
> compatibility problems. It's not something that interests me enough
> to put work into, though.

Someone optimized our PDFs using Acrobat Pro 7 for Postgres 8.1:

http://archives.postgresql.org/pgsql-advocacy/2005-11/msg00067.php
http://archives.postgresql.org/pgsql-advocacy/2005-12/msg00007.php

This was to speed up rendering, but it might have reduced file size too.
Are we doing this with our current docs?

--
Bruce Momjian <bruce(at)momjian(dot)us> http://momjian.us
EnterpriseDB http://enterprisedb.com

+ It's impossible for everything to be true. +