Re: Examining the output of: ldd `which postgres`

From: Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us>
To: Sean Chittenden <sean(at)chittenden(dot)org>
Cc: Bruce Momjian <pgman(at)candle(dot)pha(dot)pa(dot)us>, pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org
Subject: Re: Examining the output of: ldd `which postgres`
Date: 2003-09-05 23:44:28
Message-ID: 27469.1062805468@sss.pgh.pa.us
Views: Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email
Thread:
Lists: pgsql-hackers

Sean Chittenden <sean(at)chittenden(dot)org> writes:
>>> Is it really necessary for postgres to be linked with ncurses
>>> (288K) and readline (156K)? It's .5M, not the end of the world,
>>> but it seems excessive. I know the postmaster has a CLI
>>> interface, but does it really require ncurses or readline? -sc

If you can figure out a reasonable way to develop separate LIBS lists
for the backend and the other executables, I'm willing to listen.
AFAICT autoconf is not really designed to generate multiple executables
with radically different library needs from a single configure script,
and so we'd probably end up having to have multiple configure scripts.
Which seems messier than it's worth.

(Of course, if you can show that there's a significant penalty in
backend launch time from having useless shlibs linked in, I'd get
more excited about it...)

regards, tom lane

In response to

Responses

Browse pgsql-hackers by date

  From Date Subject
Next Message Tom Lane 2003-09-05 23:48:44 Re: FK type mismatches?
Previous Message Tom Lane 2003-09-05 23:26:15 Re: C language context