Re: [PATCHES] libpq type system 0.9a

"Joshua D. Drake" <jd(at)commandprompt(dot)com> writes:
> On Tue, 08 Apr 2008 14:34:51 -0400
> Andrew Chernow <ac(at)esilo(dot)com> wrote:
>> I am not sure why Tom is worried about source code size, normally the
>> concern is linked size. Code comments were never finished, as the

> Every byte added is a byte maintained (or not).

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.

Perhaps I'm overly sensitive to this because I'm tuned into Red Hat's
constant struggles to fit a Linux distribution onto a reasonable number
of CDs ...

regards, tom lane