Re: Build sizes vs docs

From: Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us>
To: Magnus Hagander <magnus(at)hagander(dot)net>
Cc: PostgreSQL-development <pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org>
Subject: Re: Build sizes vs docs
Date: 2009-12-07 20:34:02
Message-ID: 24075.1260218042@sss.pgh.pa.us
Views: Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email
Thread:
Lists: pgsql-hackers

Magnus Hagander <magnus(at)hagander(dot)net> writes:
> Came cross this when updating the cvs fix. We declare size requirements as:
> Also check that you have sufficient disk space. You will need about
> 65 MB for the source tree during compilation and about MB for
> the installation directory. An empty database cluster takes about
> 25 MB; databases take about five times the amount of space that a
> flat text file with the same data would take. If you are going to
> run the regression tests you will temporarily need up to an extra
> 90 MB. Use the <command>df</command> command to check free disk

> My source *without* compile is 82 Mb, and with a build in it (linux
> i686) is 110Mb during compilations, rather than 65.
> An empty cluster takes about 33Mb.
> The regression database takes about 132Mb.
> (this is 8.4)

> Should we fix these numbers, or just remove them? They're clearly
> platform dependent, but perhaps there's still a point in including
> them - mainly as hints?

Maybe round them off to an order of magnitude. I think it's useful
to have some idea of the size requirements, even if they change over
time. It wouldn't be a bad idea to say "as of 8.4" or some such, too.

regards, tom lane

In response to

Responses

Browse pgsql-hackers by date

  From Date Subject
Next Message Tom Lane 2009-12-07 20:44:37 Re: WAL format
Previous Message Tom Lane 2009-12-07 20:28:29 Re: WAL format