Re: Survey: renaming/removing script binaries (createdb, createuser...)
От | Tom Lane |
---|---|
Тема | Re: Survey: renaming/removing script binaries (createdb, createuser...) |
Дата | |
Msg-id | 12487.1206565567@sss.pgh.pa.us обсуждение исходный текст |
Ответ на | Re: Survey: renaming/removing script binaries (createdb, createuser...) (Alvaro Herrera <alvherre@commandprompt.com>) |
Ответы |
Re: Survey: renaming/removing script binaries (createdb,
createuser...)
|
Список | pgsql-general |
Alvaro Herrera <alvherre@commandprompt.com> writes: > Tom Lane wrote: >> I like this too. It'd be considerably more work than the currently >> proposed patch, though, since we'd have to meld the currently >> separate programs into one executable. > I note that we can continue to have the current executables stashed in > PREFIX/share/libexec and let the "pg" executable exec them. Not share/ surely, since these are executables, but yeah. This brings me to the idea that "pg" is a very small stupid program that just tries to match its first argument against a filename in PREFIX/libexec/postgresql. If it finds a match it execs that program with the remaining args, else it fails. If we do it that way then the problem of a client-only installation is solved: it merely has a smaller population of files in PREFIX/libexec, and "pg" doesn't know the difference. Also the problem of optionally providing the old names just reduces to providing links in bin/, whereas with a melded executable we'd need still more smarts to look at how it'd been invoked. So +2 or so for this one. regards, tom lane
В списке pgsql-general по дате отправления: