Re: Why not install pgstattuple by default?
Magnus Hagander <magnus@hagander.net>
From: Magnus Hagander <magnus@hagander.net>
To: Andrew Dunstan <andrew@dunslane.net>
Cc: Christopher Browne <cbbrowne@gmail.com>,
Greg Smith <greg@2ndquadrant.com>, Euler Taveira de Oliveira <euler@timbira.com>, Josh Berkus <josh.berkus@pgexperts.com>, postgres hackers <pgsql-hackers@postgresql.org>
Date: 2011-05-06T19:22:39Z
Lists: pgsql-hackers
On Fri, May 6, 2011 at 21:19, Andrew Dunstan <andrew@dunslane.net> wrote: > > > On 05/06/2011 03:14 PM, Christopher Browne wrote: >> >> On Fri, May 6, 2011 at 2:32 PM, Greg Smith<greg@2ndquadrant.com> wrote: >>> >>> Christopher Browne wrote: >>>> >>>> I'm getting "paper cuts" quite a bit these days over the differences >>>> between what different packaging systems decide to install. The one >>>> *I* get notably bit on, of late, is that I have written code that >>>> expects to have pg_config to do some degree of self-discovery, only to >>>> find production folk complaining that they only have "psql" available >>>> in their environment. >>> >>> Given the other improvements in being able to build extensions in 9.1, we >>> really should push packagers to move pg_config from the PostgreSQL >>> development package into the main one starting in that version. I've >>> gotten >>> bit by this plenty of times. >> >> I'm agreeable to that, in general. >> >> If there's a "server" package and a "client" package, it likely only >> fits with the "server" package. On a host where only the "client" is >> installed, they won't be able to install extensions, so it's pretty >> futile to have it there. > > I don't agree. It can be useful even there, to see how the libraries are > configured, for example. I'd be inclined to bundle it with postgresql-libs > or the moral equivalent. +1. And it's not like it wastes huge amount of space... -- Magnus Hagander Me: http://www.hagander.net/ Work: http://www.redpill-linpro.com/