Thread: libpq
Would it be possible to provide libpq in separate tarbal or is that too much to ask for ? Thank you! Kind regards Stefan
It seems not unusual for Linux distributions to supply libpq as part of a separate package (whether via dpkg, which I thinkuses "ar" as the archiver, or RPM, which uses cpio).<br /><br />Possibly this is already provided on your system viasome means akin to those.<br /><br />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 terriblymuch time or space (on our systems with lots of GBs) to build all of Postgres, so separating the source code to thelibrary out seems like an effort with not much value.<br /><div class="gmail_extra"><br /><br /><div class="gmail_quote">OnTue, Nov 6, 2012 at 2:11 PM, Stefan <span dir="ltr"><<a href="mailto:humdumdedum@gmail.com" target="_blank">humdumdedum@gmail.com</a>></span>wrote:<br /><blockquote class="gmail_quote" style="margin:0 0 0 .8ex;border-left:1px#ccc solid;padding-left:1ex"> Would it be possible to provide libpq in separate tarbal or is that toomuch to ask for ?<br /><br /> Thank you!<br /><br /> Kind regards<br /><span class="HOEnZb"><font color="#888888">Stefan<br/><br /><br /><br /><br /><br /> --<br /> Sent via pgsql-hackers mailing list (<a href="mailto:pgsql-hackers@postgresql.org">pgsql-hackers@postgresql.org</a>)<br/> To make changes to your subscription:<br/><a href="http://www.postgresql.org/mailpref/pgsql-hackers" target="_blank">http://www.postgresql.org/mailpref/pgsql-hackers</a><br/></font></span></blockquote></div><br /><br clear="all"/><br />-- <br />When confronted by a difficult problem, solve it by reducing it to the<br />question, "How wouldthe Lone Ranger handle this?"<br /><br /></div>
On Tue, Nov 06, 2012 at 04:04:51PM -0500, Christopher Browne wrote: > It seems not unusual for Linux distributions to supply libpq as part of a > separate package (whether via dpkg, which I think uses "ar" as the > archiver, or RPM, which uses cpio). > > Possibly this is already provided on your system via some means akin to > those. > > 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. > +1 For a Linux box the entire installation is <50MB. Now if it were something large like *racle, maybe.... Regards, Ken > > On Tue, Nov 6, 2012 at 2:11 PM, Stefan <humdumdedum@gmail.com> wrote: > > > Would it be possible to provide libpq in separate tarbal or is that too > > much to ask for ? > > > > Thank you! > > > > Kind regards > > Stefan > > > > > > > > > > > > -- > > Sent via pgsql-hackers mailing list (pgsql-hackers@postgresql.org) > > To make changes to your subscription: > > http://www.postgresql.org/mailpref/pgsql-hackers > > > > > > -- > When confronted by a difficult problem, solve it by reducing it to the > question, "How would the Lone Ranger handle this?"
Christopher Browne <cbbrowne@gmail.com> writes:
> It seems not unusual for Linux distributions to supply libpq as part of a
> archiver, or RPM, which uses cpio).
AFAIK, it's standard to ship libpq plus minimum required supporting
files in a postgresql-libs or similarly named package. Certainly the
PGDG RPMs do it that way, as do Red Hat's.
> 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.
regards, tom lane
On Tue, Nov 6, 2012 at 6:59 PM, Tom Lane <tgl@sss.pgh.pa.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.
Claudio Freire <klaussfreire@gmail.com> writes:
> 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.
The documentation already suggests
gmake -C src/interfaces install
Dunno that it's worth more than that. (That particular choice would get
you ecpg too, but you could go down to src/interfaces/libpq if you
really want just that.)
The real issue with this sort of thing is that when somebody wants a
subset install, their desires are usually pretty specific --- eg, do
they want the include files? what about docs? Distro-specific packages
such as RPMs typically have a distro policy to follow about such things,
but it's hard to cater for every scenario in a few makefile targets.
regards, tom lane
On Tue, Nov 6, 2012 at 7:25 PM, Tom Lane <tgl@sss.pgh.pa.us> wrote: > Claudio Freire <klaussfreire@gmail.com> writes: >> 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. > > The documentation already suggests > > gmake -C src/interfaces install Funny. I just went through INSTALL and found it, but I looked hard because you said it was there. It's a bit buried for the average joe (line 750, no noticeable header saying something eye-catching).