Re: Why not install pgstattuple by default? - Mailing list pgsql-hackers

From Bruce Momjian
Subject Re: Why not install pgstattuple by default?
Date
Msg-id 201105102140.p4ALeV911945@momjian.us
Whole thread Raw
In response to Re: Why not install pgstattuple by default?  (Tom Lane <tgl@sss.pgh.pa.us>)
Responses Re: Why not install pgstattuple by default?  (Tom Lane <tgl@sss.pgh.pa.us>)
List pgsql-hackers
Tom Lane wrote:
> Christopher Browne <cbbrowne@gmail.com> writes:
> > But people are evidently still setting packaging policies based on how
> > things were back in 7.3, even though that perhaps isn't necessary
> > anymore.
> 
> FWIW, once you get past the client versus server distinction, I think
> most subpackaging decisions are based on either the idea that "only a
> minority of people will want this", or a desire to limit how many
> dependencies are pulled in by the main package(s).  Both of those
> concerns apply to various subsets of -contrib, which means it's going
> to be hard to persuade packagers to fold -contrib into the -server
> package altogether.  Nor would you gain their approval by trying to
> pre-empt the decision.
> 
> We might get somewhere by trying to identify a small set of particularly
> popular contrib modules that don't add any extra dependencies, and then
> recommending to packagers that those ones get bundled into the main
> server package.
> 
> > Certainly it's not a huge amount of code; less than 2MB these days.
> > -> % wc `dpkg -L postgresql-contrib-9.0` | tail -1
> >   15952   67555 1770987 total
> 
> Well, to add some concrete facts rather than generalities to my own post,
> here are the sizes of the built RPMs from my last build for Fedora:
> 
> -rw-r--r--. 1 tgl tgl  3839458 Apr 18 10:50 postgresql-9.0.4-1.fc13.x86_64.rpm
> -rw-r--r--. 1 tgl tgl   490788 Apr 18 10:50 postgresql-contrib-9.0.4-1.fc13.x86_64.rpm
> -rw-r--r--. 1 tgl tgl 27337677 Apr 18 10:51 postgresql-debuginfo-9.0.4-1.fc13.x86_64.rpm
> -rw-r--r--. 1 tgl tgl   961660 Apr 18 10:50 postgresql-devel-9.0.4-1.fc13.x86_64.rpm
> -rw-r--r--. 1 tgl tgl  7569048 Apr 18 10:50 postgresql-docs-9.0.4-1.fc13.x86_64.rpm
> -rw-r--r--. 1 tgl tgl   246506 Apr 18 10:50 postgresql-libs-9.0.4-1.fc13.x86_64.rpm
> -rw-r--r--. 1 tgl tgl    64940 Apr 18 10:50 postgresql-plperl-9.0.4-1.fc13.x86_64.rpm
> -rw-r--r--. 1 tgl tgl    65776 Apr 18 10:50 postgresql-plpython-9.0.4-1.fc13.x86_64.rpm
> -rw-r--r--. 1 tgl tgl    45941 Apr 18 10:50 postgresql-pltcl-9.0.4-1.fc13.x86_64.rpm
> -rw-r--r--. 1 tgl tgl  5302117 Apr 18 10:50 postgresql-server-9.0.4-1.fc13.x86_64.rpm
> -rw-r--r--. 1 tgl tgl  1370509 Apr 18 10:50 postgresql-test-9.0.4-1.fc13.x86_64.rpm
> -rw-r--r--. 1 tgl tgl  3644113 Apr 18 10:50 postgresql-upgrade-9.0.4-1.fc13.x86_64.rpm

Is that last one pg_upgrade?  It seems very big.

--  Bruce Momjian  <bruce@momjian.us>        http://momjian.us EnterpriseDB
http://enterprisedb.com
 + It's impossible for everything to be true. +


pgsql-hackers by date:

Previous
From: Darren Duncan
Date:
Subject: Re: VARIANT / ANYTYPE datatype
Next
From: Peter Eisentraut
Date:
Subject: Re: Backpatching of "Teach the regular expression functions to do case-insensitive matching"