Re: Question and suggestion about application binary compatibility policy

On 1 June 2016 at 13:09, Tsunakawa, Takayuki <tsunakawa(dot)takay(at)jp(dot)fujitsu(dot)com
> wrote:

> From: pgsql-hackers-owner(at)postgresql(dot)org [mailto:
> pgsql-hackers-owner(at)postgresql(dot)org] On Behalf Of Craig Ringer
>
> While that's probably OK, it's not especially desirable. The typical
> Windows deployment model involves the application bundling all its direct
> dependencies except when those are provided by a runtime redistributable
> designed for that purpose.
>
>
>
>
>
> I think so, too, but I'm not confident that's typical. Some people may
> think of PostgreSQL binaries as a shared component for their applications
> and place it in one place, just like the PostgreSQL library package is in
> /usr/lib/pgsql.
>

(Your reply formatting seems mangled, mixing my text with yours)

/usr/lib/pgsql works because *nix systems don't typically do binary
distribution.

Windows apps that rely on binary distribution should bundle the libraries
they require.

Maybe a note on windows distribution in the libpq manual would be
warranted. I thought it was so accepted as the way it's done that nobody
would really do anything else.

(Then again, EDB's installers don't bundle their Python, Perl, etc
runtimes, but I think that's partly a legal thing).

> There's a client-only installation method as follows, although I haven't
> checked whether EnterpriseDB, OpenSCG, or any other PostgreSQL-based
> products provide client-only installation.
>
>
> https://www.postgresql.org/docs/devel/static/install-windows-full.html#AEN30192
>

Right, and EDBs installers also let you install just the client AFAIK, but
there's no simple client library redist package, like you'd expect if it
was intended for use that way.

--
Craig Ringer http://www.2ndQuadrant.com/
PostgreSQL Development, 24x7 Support, Training & Services