On Tue, Apr 8, 2008 at 3:10 PM, Bruce Momjian <bruce@momjian.us> wrote:
> > Actually I was thinking more about disk footprint. Andrew's comment is
> > correct if you work with statically linked code where the compiler pulls
> > out only the needed .o files from a .a library, but that's pretty out of
> > fashion these days. Most people are dealing with a monolithic libpq.so
> > and might carp a bit if it gets 25% or 50% bigger for stuff that doesn't
> > interest them.
on my box, the .so went from 118k to 175k. while this is significant
in percentage terms, I don't think redhat is going to complain about
57k (correct me if I'm wrong here).
> Also, if we add to libpq we have to document this new functionality. It
> doesn't make sense to add to the API unless there is a significant
> number of people who will use it.
We are prepared to write the formal documentation if necessary (and
whatever else, code comments and a proper regression test for
example). I'll address the 'who will want to use it' in response to
Tom's mail.
merlin
