Building only a subset of libraries / binaries would be sufficient for our
use case (and even only building a subset of the tree would get us most of
the way there).
A configure-time switch to only build client binaries would be ideal but
perhaps that could be a long term goal.
In our fork we tri
Hi,
On 2025-10-21 12:02:27 -0400, Tom Lane wrote:
> Benjamin Leff writes:
> >> I believe the prevailing opinion was that the amount
> >> of time saved by not building all of PG didn't justify the maintenance
> >> effort to keep the build scripts working for that case
>
> > IMO, it’s not just abo
Benjamin Leff writes:
>> I believe the prevailing opinion was that the amount
>> of time saved by not building all of PG didn't justify the maintenance
>> effort to keep the build scripts working for that case
> IMO, it’s not just about time. For bare bones package managers when there’s
> no need
> I believe the prevailing opinion was that the amount
of time saved by not building all of PG didn't justify the maintenance
effort to keep the build scripts working for that case
IMO, it’s not just about time. For bare bones package managers when there’s
no need to build the server, this saves a
Peter Eisentraut writes:
> On 20.10.25 22:43, Benjamin Leff wrote:
>> Are there any plans to support a client-only (no server) build in meson?
> I'm not aware of such plans. But that doesn't mean somebody couldn't
> propose one.
Years ago we had support for client-only builds on at least some
On 20.10.25 22:43, Benjamin Leff wrote:
Are there any plans to support a client-only (no server) build in meson?
I'm not aware of such plans. But that doesn't mean somebody couldn't
propose one.
