Andrew Chernow wrote:
>>
>> Well, I can get it working with a very small patch. We actually don't
>> need very much in libpq. Although, making it somehow generic enough
>> to be useful to other extensions is a bit tricky. Please, suggestions
>> would be helpful.
>>
>
Quick question on the hook concept before I try to supply a new patch.
From my experience, redhat normally compiles everything into their
packages; like apache modules. Why would libpq be any different in
regards to libpqtypes?
If they don't distribute libpqtypes, how does a libpq user link with
libpqtypes? They don't have the library. Where would they get a
libpqtypes.so that is compatible with redhat's supplied libpq.so?
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. If
redhat follows their normal policy of include all (probably to make
their distro as feature rich out-of-the-box as possible), then they
would distribute libpqtypes.so which would use the same amount of space
as if it were part of libpq.
--
Andrew Chernow
eSilo, LLC
every bit counts
http://www.esilo.com/
