| From: | Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us> |
|---|---|
| To: | Alvaro Herrera <alvherre(at)commandprompt(dot)com> |
| Cc: | Andrew Chernow <ac(at)esilo(dot)com>, Bruce Momjian <bruce(at)momjian(dot)us>, Martijn van Oosterhout <kleptog(at)svana(dot)org>, Greg Sabino Mullane <greg(at)turnstep(dot)com>, pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org |
| Subject: | Re: [PATCHES] libpq type system 0.9a |
| Date: | 2008-04-09 15:32:03 |
| Message-ID: | 20566.1207755123@sss.pgh.pa.us |
| Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
| Thread: | |
| Lists: | pgsql-hackers pgsql-patches |
Alvaro Herrera <alvherre(at)commandprompt(dot)com> writes:
> Andrew Chernow wrote:
>> The core of what I am trying to ask is, there doesn't appear to be an
>> advantage to separating libpqtypes from libpq in terms of space.
> My guess is that if we provide an useful library, Redhat will distribute
> it some way or another.
The key phrase in that being "some way or another". Red Hat works with
a concept of core vs extras (or another way to look at it being what
comes on the CDs vs what you have to download from someplace). I think
it's highly likely that libpgtypes would end up in extras. If you do
not make it possible to package it that way (ie, separately from libpq),
it's more likely that it won't get packaged at all than that it will be
put in core.
regards, tom lane
| From | Date | Subject | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Next Message | Merlin Moncure | 2008-04-09 15:33:43 | Re: [PATCHES] libpq type system 0.9a |
| Previous Message | Alvaro Herrera | 2008-04-09 15:18:38 | Re: Calling GSoc Mentors |
| From | Date | Subject | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Next Message | Merlin Moncure | 2008-04-09 15:33:43 | Re: [PATCHES] libpq type system 0.9a |
| Previous Message | Andrew Chernow | 2008-04-09 15:17:10 | Re: [PATCHES] libpq type system 0.9a |