"Merlin Moncure" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes: >>> 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.
> on my box, the .so went from 118k to 175k. while this is significant > in percentage terms, I don't think redhat is going to complain about > 57k (correct me if I'm wrong here). Yipes, 48% growth in the binary already? That's much higher than I'd expected from my quick source-code count, even with the scarcity of comments. What happens by the time the feature actually becomes mature? Yes, I could see Red Hat complaining about that. I'd rather have libpq (as it currently stands) included in core RHEL, and "libpqtypes" as an optional extra, than have a monolithic library get booted out to extras altogether. It could happen. Don't think they don't see us as a secondary objective ... mysql still has a lot more mindshare. regards, tom lane -- Sent via pgsql-hackers mailing list (pgsql-hackers@postgresql.org) To make changes to your subscription: http://www.postgresql.org/mailpref/pgsql-hackers