Tom Lane wrote: > "Joshua D. Drake" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes: > > On Tue, 08 Apr 2008 14:34:51 -0400 > > Andrew Chernow <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > >> I am not sure why Tom is worried about source code size, normally the > >> concern is linked size. Code comments were never finished, as the > > > Every byte added is a byte maintained (or not). > > Actually I was thinking more about disk footprint. Andrew's comment is > correct if you work with statically linked code where the compiler pulls > out only the needed .o files from a .a library, but that's pretty out of > fashion these days. Most people are dealing with a monolithic libpq.so > and might carp a bit if it gets 25% or 50% bigger for stuff that doesn't > interest them. > > Perhaps I'm overly sensitive to this because I'm tuned into Red Hat's > constant struggles to fit a Linux distribution onto a reasonable number > of CDs ...
Also, if we add to libpq we have to document this new functionality. It doesn't make sense to add to the API unless there is a significant number of people who will use it. -- Bruce Momjian <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> http://momjian.us EnterpriseDB http://enterprisedb.com + If your life is a hard drive, Christ can be your backup. + -- Sent via pgsql-hackers mailing list (pgsql-hackers@postgresql.org) To make changes to your subscription: http://www.postgresql.org/mailpref/pgsql-hackers
