| From: | Claudio Freire <klaussfreire(at)gmail(dot)com> |
|---|---|
| To: | Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us> |
| Cc: | Christopher Browne <cbbrowne(at)gmail(dot)com>, Stefan <humdumdedum(at)gmail(dot)com>, PostgreSQL Mailing Lists <pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org> |
| Subject: | Re: libpq |
| Date: | 2012-11-06 22:13:42 |
| Message-ID: | CAGTBQpb-aW+zD4TrNyVtXAUYLGMoAsTB3Si2upJ80sicx_VJ6A@mail.gmail.com |
| Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
| Thread: | |
| Lists: | pgsql-hackers |
On Tue, Nov 6, 2012 at 6:59 PM, Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us> wrote:
>> If, instead, you are keen on getting the source code for libpq in a
>> separate tarball, I'd seriously question why that would be expected to be
>> valuable. On most systems, these days, it doesn't take terribly much time
>> or space (on our systems with lots of GBs) to build all of Postgres, so
>> separating the source code to the library out seems like an effort with not
>> much value.
>
> We did do that, many years ago, and dropped it because the demand was
> too minuscule to justify the maintenance effort. I'd imagine that the
> usefulness ratio has only gotten smaller since then.
Maybe anl libs / install-libs makefile target?
I've already faced the complicated procedure one has to go through to
build and install only libpq built from source.
| From | Date | Subject | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Next Message | Tom Lane | 2012-11-06 22:25:32 | Re: libpq |
| Previous Message | Tom Lane | 2012-11-06 21:59:46 | Re: libpq |