Re: [HACKERS] Data type removal

On Tue, 24 Mar 1998, Brandon Ibach wrote:

> I, for one, am in favor of converting some of the type packages to
> loadable modules. Having those in the backend when they aren't being
> used is much like compiling extra modules into my Apache web server
> because they're "kinda neat", even though they won't be used. Also,

I don't know about Apache, but is there any noticeable performance
difference between having extra modules installed or not installed? It
makes the binary slightly larger, but does it change performance?

> if we follow the idea that we should have as many unique features in the
> backend as possible, we could end up with all sorts of features that are
> only used by a subset of users. For instance, I don't use the geometric
> types, but I do use a soundex type which I created. Why isn't the
> soundex type a standard part of the backend? I, personally, am glad
> it's not, because I like the version of this type that I created a lot
> better than the one that's in contrib.

If yours is an improvement over what we have in contrib, why not
submit it?

> As far as the whole performance-improvement issue, I can say that
> if the backend is, say, 50K smaller due to the removal of those
> functions, that's just that much less swapping and that much more
> memory that's available for the OS buffer cache. Isn't that an
> improvement worth considering?

Not if it removes the Postgres from PostgreSQL...I don't have the
ip_and_mac contrib stuff loaded, because I never think of it. I know I
can use it, mind you, just never think of adding it in...

> How about this as a compromise. We make these packages available in
> the contrib or other such area as loadable modules as well as making
> them available right in the main backend code, but setup configure
> options to enable/disable them, so when I compile, I can say
> "--without-geometry" to compile without those types and functions. If I
> want to add them back in later, I can compile the loadable module
> version and add them in.

As I stated earlier, if someone wants to add a
'--without-geometry' option to configure that removes it, I have no
problem with that...but it will only be to remove the feature, not add it
in. Hell, I'm probably one that would even make use of it, since, right
now, I don't use the geometric types either...but the default is to have
everything included. I don't want to have to think about it someday when
I decide I want to use those geometric types...