Re: [HACKERS] createlang/droplang deprecated
От | Magnus Hagander |
---|---|
Тема | Re: [HACKERS] createlang/droplang deprecated |
Дата | |
Msg-id | CABUevEyjOmar2GdxPrkm1UA-jEdN2m3ie-GWvwi=Hh4SZrDaSA@mail.gmail.com обсуждение исходный текст |
Ответ на | Re: [HACKERS] createlang/droplang deprecated (Robert Haas <robertmhaas@gmail.com>) |
Список | pgsql-hackers |
On Sat, Mar 18, 2017 at 6:13 PM, Robert Haas <robertmhaas@gmail.com> wrote:
On Sat, Mar 18, 2017 at 11:29 AM, Tom Lane <tgl@sss.pgh.pa.us> wrote:
> Magnus Hagander <magnus@hagander.net> writes:
>>> 2017-03-18 14:00 GMT+01:00 Peter Eisentraut <peter.eisentraut@2ndquadrant.com>:
>>>> I just noticed that createlang and droplang have been listed as
>>>> deprecated since PG 9.1.
>>>> Do we dare remove them?
>
>> (I'd extend it to all the non-prefixed pg binaries, but let's open that can
>> of worms right now, one thing at a time)
>
> To my mind, these two and createuser/dropuser are the only really serious
> namespacing problems among our standard binaries. The ones with names
> ending in "db" don't seem likely to cause huge confusion. I suppose that
> if we were naming it today, "psql" wouldn't get that name; but the chances
> of renaming that one are certainly zero, namespace conflict or no.
>
> But createuser/dropuser are a real problem, because they certainly could
> be mistaken for system-level utilities.
Well, let's do one thing at a time. I think it'd be fine to drop
createlang and droplang; we can discuss other things on other threads.
+1. I see no issues at all dropping createlang/droplang, so let's do that. Some of the others can be worth discussing, so let's not wait for that to pan out before these are removed.
В списке pgsql-hackers по дате отправления: