Re: [PATCHES] libpq type system 0.9a

Tom Lane wrote:
> "Joshua D. Drake" <jd(at)commandprompt(dot)com> writes:
> > On Tue, 08 Apr 2008 14:34:51 -0400
> > Andrew Chernow <ac(at)esilo(dot)com> 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 <bruce(at)momjian(dot)us> http://momjian.us
EnterpriseDB http://enterprisedb.com

+ If your life is a hard drive, Christ can be your backup. +