On Fri, Sep 17, 2010 at 00:59, Thom Brown <thom(at)linux(dot)com> wrote:
> 2010/9/16 Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us>:
>> 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
>> 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.
> Looks like a bloat issue to me. Just used jPDF Tweak on the file and
> it compresses it down to 7.2MB, and still remains a 1.4 PDF.
Cool - I can reproduce that with jPDF Tweak. That sounds like
something we should use as part of our standard way of doing the PDFs
for the website at least. I just did a simple:
java -jar pdftweak.jar postgresql-9.0rc1-A4.pdf -os compressed.pdf.
Devrim, is this something you can easily put into your process for
building the website PDFs?
I haven't verified that the contents are ok beyond a very quick check
though - we should probably do that too.
In response to
pgsql-www by date
|Next:||From: Michael Meskes||Date: 2010-09-17 12:29:29|
|Subject: Re: Report: removing the inconsistencies in our CVS->git
|Previous:||From: Magnus Hagander||Date: 2010-09-17 11:08:45|
|Subject: Re: Beta page (pdfs)|