Обсуждение: script binaries renaming
I attach complete patch which renames following binaries createdb createlang createuser dropdb droplang dropuser clusterdb vacuumdb reindexdb to pg_createdb pg_createlang pg_createuser pg_dropdb pg_droplang pg_dropuser pg_clusterdb pg_vacuumdb pg_reindexdb Symlinks (or copy on win32) are created for backward compatibility. This renaming was discussed there: http://archives.postgresql.org/pgsql-hackers/2007-06/msg00145.php I create also separate unified patch for documentation. Zdenek
Вложения
Zdenek Kotala wrote: > I attach complete patch which renames following binaries > > createdb createlang createuser dropdb droplang dropuser clusterdb > vacuumdb reindexdb > > to > > pg_createdb pg_createlang pg_createuser pg_dropdb pg_droplang > pg_dropuser pg_clusterdb pg_vacuumdb pg_reindexdb > > Symlinks (or copy on win32) are created for backward compatibility. > > This renaming was discussed there: > > http://archives.postgresql.org/pgsql-hackers/2007-06/msg00145.php > > I create also separate unified patch for documentation. A couple of comments: Do we actually need to remove and recreate the documentation files? Can't we keep the source files and just have it generate the man pages and other references with the outputname pg_xyz? Should we be installing symlinks or at least a placeholder manpage for the old commandnames (maybe a single man page for all the old commands saying "prefix pg_ to get this command") the same way it's done for the binaries? (my apologies if it already does this, I don't know exactly how the man pages are generated from the sgml. I just noticed there was no makefile modified in the docs area) I'm also not sure we really should install copies on win32. Given how seldom these commands are actually used on windows (most people really use pgadmin to do these things). Also, your patch does not touch the msvc buildsystem, which will still be generating files with the old name. //Magnus
Am Mittwoch, 4. Juli 2007 17:04 schrieb Zdenek Kotala: > I attach complete patch which renames following binaries > > createdb createlang createuser dropdb droplang dropuser clusterdb > vacuumdb reindexdb I just want to say I dislike this idea. -- Peter Eisentraut http://developer.postgresql.org/~petere/
Am Donnerstag, 5. Juli 2007 06:59 schrieb Magnus Hagander: > I'm also not sure we really should install copies on win32. Given how > seldom these commands are actually used on windows But some people do use them, and they should have the same experience as on any other platform. I don't think disk space is really a concern, is it? -- Peter Eisentraut http://developer.postgresql.org/~petere/
On Fri, July 6, 2007 8:51 am, Peter Eisentraut wrote: > Am Mittwoch, 4. Juli 2007 17:04 schrieb Zdenek Kotala: >> I attach complete patch which renames following binaries >> >> createdb createlang createuser dropdb droplang dropuser clusterdb >> vacuumdb reindexdb > > I just want to say I dislike this idea. This is almost as bad as Magnus agreeing with JD (!), but I agree with Peter :-). After years of typing the current names, changing them does seem somewhat annoying. Worse yet, pg_* is just awkward to type. /D
On Jul 6, 2007, at 5:53 , Dave Page wrote: > On Fri, July 6, 2007 8:51 am, Peter Eisentraut wrote: >> Am Mittwoch, 4. Juli 2007 17:04 schrieb Zdenek Kotala: >>> I attach complete patch which renames following binaries >>> >>> createdb createlang createuser dropdb droplang dropuser clusterdb >>> vacuumdb reindexdb >> >> I just want to say I dislike this idea. > > This is almost as bad as Magnus agreeing with JD (!), but I agree with > Peter :-). After years of typing the current names, changing them does > seem somewhat annoying. Worse yet, pg_* is just awkward to type. While the change might be awkward, the names of these binaries really should be namespaced in some way. The current just too generic to be throwing into a bin/ directory in my opinion. Michael Glaesemann grzm seespotcode net
Michael Glaesemann wrote: > > On Jul 6, 2007, at 5:53 , Dave Page wrote: > >> On Fri, July 6, 2007 8:51 am, Peter Eisentraut wrote: >>> Am Mittwoch, 4. Juli 2007 17:04 schrieb Zdenek Kotala: >>>> I attach complete patch which renames following binaries >>>> >>>> createdb createlang createuser dropdb droplang dropuser clusterdb >>>> vacuumdb reindexdb >>> >>> I just want to say I dislike this idea. >> >> This is almost as bad as Magnus agreeing with JD (!), but I agree with >> Peter :-). After years of typing the current names, changing them does >> seem somewhat annoying. Worse yet, pg_* is just awkward to type. > > While the change might be awkward, the names of these binaries really > should be namespaced in some way. The current just too generic to be > throwing into a bin/ directory in my opinion. Why should they be name spaced? I see zero reason why that should be the case... apache_httpd? gnu_ls? The only obvious name spaced applications out there are in the G/K world of nome and de. Joshua D. Drake > > Michael Glaesemann > grzm seespotcode net > > > > ---------------------------(end of broadcast)--------------------------- > TIP 4: Have you searched our list archives? > > http://archives.postgresql.org > -- === The PostgreSQL Company: Command Prompt, Inc. === Sales/Support: +1.503.667.4564 || 24x7/Emergency: +1.800.492.2240 Providing the most comprehensive PostgreSQL solutions since 1997 http://www.commandprompt.com/ Donate to the PostgreSQL Project: http://www.postgresql.org/about/donate PostgreSQL Replication: http://www.commandprompt.com/products/
Michael Glaesemann wrote: > > On Jul 6, 2007, at 5:53 , Dave Page wrote: > >> On Fri, July 6, 2007 8:51 am, Peter Eisentraut wrote: >>> Am Mittwoch, 4. Juli 2007 17:04 schrieb Zdenek Kotala: >>>> I attach complete patch which renames following binaries >>>> >>>> createdb createlang createuser dropdb droplang dropuser clusterdb >>>> vacuumdb reindexdb >>> >>> I just want to say I dislike this idea. >> >> This is almost as bad as Magnus agreeing with JD (!), but I agree with >> Peter :-). After years of typing the current names, changing them does >> seem somewhat annoying. Worse yet, pg_* is just awkward to type. > > While the change might be awkward, the names of these binaries really > should be namespaced in some way. The current just too generic to be > throwing into a bin/ directory in my opinion. Of course I realize that I voted for the idea in the first place. I voted for it for consistency more than anything but as I think about it, it really is clunky and doesn't serve any real purpose. Joshua D. Drake > > Michael Glaesemann > grzm seespotcode net > > > > ---------------------------(end of broadcast)--------------------------- > TIP 4: Have you searched our list archives? > > http://archives.postgresql.org > -- === The PostgreSQL Company: Command Prompt, Inc. === Sales/Support: +1.503.667.4564 || 24x7/Emergency: +1.800.492.2240 Providing the most comprehensive PostgreSQL solutions since 1997 http://www.commandprompt.com/ Donate to the PostgreSQL Project: http://www.postgresql.org/about/donate PostgreSQL Replication: http://www.commandprompt.com/products/
On Jul 6, 2007, at 11:28 , Joshua D. Drake wrote: > Why should they be name spaced? I see zero reason why that should > be the case... > > apache_httpd? > gnu_ls? Personally, I think that the Apache daemon *should* be named apached or something along those lines. Compare with postgres, pg_ctl, pg_dump, or pg_config. Albeit postgres is not consistent, they're all easily identifiable with PostgreSQL. In my opinion, postgres, pg_ctl, pg_ccmp, and pg_config are better names than, say, dbmsd, dbms_ctl, db_dump, and db_config. Also, we recently deprecated the use of postmaster (easily confused with mail systems) in favor of postgres. Looking at the binaries that are installed for 8.2: clusterdb createdb createlang createuser dropdb droplang dropuser ecpg initdb ipcclean pg_config pg_controldata pg_ctl pg_dump pg_dumpall pg_resetxlog pg_restore postgres postmaster -> postgres psql reindexdb vacuumdb If these are all dumped into /usr/local/bin (as they sometimes are), many of them are not readily identifiable with PostgreSQL. Shouldn't they be? Compare with Subversion: svn svnadmin svndumpfileter svnlook svnserver svnsync svnversion I find these names much more consistent. Michael Glaesemann grzm seespotcode net
Magnus Hagander wrote: > Zdenek Kotala wrote: >> I attach complete patch which renames following binaries >> >> createdb createlang createuser dropdb droplang dropuser clusterdb >> vacuumdb reindexdb >> >> to >> >> pg_createdb pg_createlang pg_createuser pg_dropdb pg_droplang >> pg_dropuser pg_clusterdb pg_vacuumdb pg_reindexdb >> >> Symlinks (or copy on win32) are created for backward compatibility. >> >> This renaming was discussed there: >> >> http://archives.postgresql.org/pgsql-hackers/2007-06/msg00145.php >> >> I create also separate unified patch for documentation. > > A couple of comments: > > Do we actually need to remove and recreate the documentation files? > Can't we keep the source files and just have it generate the man pages > and other references with the outputname pg_xyz? I used postmaster/postgresql as a pattern for makefile and documentation changes. > Should we be installing symlinks or at least a placeholder manpage for > the old commandnames (maybe a single man page for all the old commands > saying "prefix pg_ to get this command") the same way it's done for the > binaries? (my apologies if it already does this, I don't know exactly > how the man pages are generated from the sgml. I just noticed there was > no makefile modified in the docs area) I'm not guru on documentation building, but there are driver files which contains list of files - see reference.sgml and ref/allfiles.sgml. I copied decription from current pages to new pg_* files. In old files I only keep mention that it is obsolete command. See postmaster documentation. > I'm also not sure we really should install copies on win32. Given how > seldom these commands are actually used on windows (most people really > use pgadmin to do these things). Postmaster does same thing. > Also, your patch does not touch the msvc buildsystem, which will still > be generating files with the old name. Hmm. I do not nothing about it :(. I need help there. Thank for your comments Zdenek
Zdenek Kotala wrote: >> I'm also not sure we really should install copies on win32. Given how >> seldom these commands are actually used on windows (most people really >> use pgadmin to do these things). > > Postmaster does same thing. Actually, the win32 distribution only ships postgres.exe, not postmaster.exe. >> Also, your patch does not touch the msvc buildsystem, which will still >> be generating files with the old name. > > Hmm. I do not nothing about it :(. I need help there. Actually, now that I look at it it seems like most of it comes out automatically from the Makefile parser. We'll just have to test that if the patch ends up being accepted (as there seems to be some discussion about that...) //Magnus
Dave Page wrote:
> On Fri, July 6, 2007 8:51 am, Peter Eisentraut wrote:
>> Am Mittwoch, 4. Juli 2007 17:04 schrieb Zdenek Kotala:
>>> I attach complete patch which renames following binaries
>>>
>>> createdb createlang createuser dropdb droplang dropuser clusterdb
>>> vacuumdb reindexdb
>> I just want to say I dislike this idea.
>
> This is almost as bad as Magnus agreeing with JD (!), but I agree with
> Peter :-). After years of typing the current names, changing them does
> seem somewhat annoying. Worse yet, pg_* is just awkward to type.
But these utilities are mostly using in scripts -> one type, multi use.
I think, most users prefer psql for interactive typing.
Zdenek
Joshua D. Drake wrote:
> Michael Glaesemann wrote:
>>
>> On Jul 6, 2007, at 5:53 , Dave Page wrote:
>>
>>> On Fri, July 6, 2007 8:51 am, Peter Eisentraut wrote:
>>>> Am Mittwoch, 4. Juli 2007 17:04 schrieb Zdenek Kotala:
>>>>> I attach complete patch which renames following binaries
>>>>>
>>>>> createdb createlang createuser dropdb droplang dropuser clusterdb
>>>>> vacuumdb reindexdb
>>>>
>>>> I just want to say I dislike this idea.
>>>
>>> This is almost as bad as Magnus agreeing with JD (!), but I agree with
>>> Peter :-). After years of typing the current names, changing them does
>>> seem somewhat annoying. Worse yet, pg_* is just awkward to type.
>>
>> While the change might be awkward, the names of these binaries really
>> should be namespaced in some way. The current just too generic to be
>> throwing into a bin/ directory in my opinion.
>
> Of course I realize that I voted for the idea in the first place. I
> voted for it for consistency more than anything but as I think about it,
> it really is clunky and doesn't serve any real purpose.
>
There is group of people who has different opinion. The main reasons for
this patch are 1) names could collide with system tools 2) it is
confusing for lot of users - typically for newbies and me :-) 3) it is
not consistent with naming convention.
I started to use postgres since version 6.5 and these names of script
utilities are still confusing for me.
By the way my original idea was create new command "pg_cmd", which
integrates all in one include missing commands(e.g. createtablespace).
Zdenek
Zdenek Kotala <Zdenek.Kotala@Sun.COM> writes:
> Dave Page wrote:
>> This is almost as bad as Magnus agreeing with JD (!), but I agree with
>> Peter :-). After years of typing the current names, changing them does
>> seem somewhat annoying. Worse yet, pg_* is just awkward to type.
> But these utilities are mostly using in scripts -> one type, multi use.
According to whom? The ones that are really at issue I think are
createuser/createlang/dropuser/droplang, and those seem mainly intended
for interactive use. In a script you might as well use psql -c.
The ones that have "db" in the name do not seem to me to need renaming.
While maybe not obviously connected to Postgres, the chance of a
collision with some other project is low.
One that I'd personally vote to remove completely is "ipcclean".
It's always been a crude, incomplete hack anyway, and the reason
no one has bothered to improve it is that there is next to no use
for it anymore.
regards, tom lane
Zdenek Kotala <Zdenek.Kotala@Sun.COM> writes:
> There is group of people who has different opinion. The main reasons for
> this patch are 1) names could collide with system tools
That argument is purely theoretical, though, since no one has complained
to us of an *actual* collision. With these utilities having been around
with their current names for more than ten years, I think we've
established sufficient squatter's rights on the names ;-). No doubt
we'd do it differently if starting in a green field, but we're not
starting in a green field. There's enough usage precedent now that I
doubt we can ever remove the existing names, which leaves me wondering
what is the point.
> By the way my original idea was create new command "pg_cmd", which
> integrates all in one include missing commands(e.g. createtablespace).
There doesn't seem to be anyone but you who feels any attraction to that
concept. These utilities have a wide enough difference in behavior and
intended usage that ISTM force-fitting them into a single binary would
just increase confusion and difficulty of use.
regards, tom lane
On Jul 7, 2007, at 13:50 , Tom Lane wrote: > Zdenek Kotala <Zdenek.Kotala@Sun.COM> writes: >> Dave Page wrote: >>> This is almost as bad as Magnus agreeing with JD (!), but I agree >>> with >>> Peter :-). After years of typing the current names, changing them >>> does >>> seem somewhat annoying. Worse yet, pg_* is just awkward to type. > >> But these utilities are mostly using in scripts -> one type, multi >> use. > > According to whom? The ones that are really at issue I think are > createuser/createlang/dropuser/droplang, and those seem mainly > intended > for interactive use. In a script you might as well use psql -c. I'm curious as to know how often these are used at all. I think I may have used createuser once and used to use createlang, but I can't recall ever using the others. Michael Glaesemann grzm seespotcode net
On 7/7/07, Michael Glaesemann <grzm@seespotcode.net> wrote:
> I'm curious as to know how often these are used at all. I think I may
> have used createuser once and used to use createlang, but I can't
> recall ever using the others.
>
i used to use createlang before the pg_pltemplate exists (because i
hate to have to create those pl handlers at hand). after that the only
script that has a real use to me is initdb and pg_ctl
what makes me wonder why doesn't exist "pg_ctl init"
--
regards,
Jaime Casanova
"Programming today is a race between software engineers striving to
build bigger and better idiot-proof programs and the universe trying
to produce bigger and better idiots.
So far, the universe is winning."
Richard Cook
Michael Glaesemann wrote: > > On Jul 7, 2007, at 13:50 , Tom Lane wrote: > >> Zdenek Kotala <Zdenek.Kotala@Sun.COM> writes: >>> Dave Page wrote: >>>> This is almost as bad as Magnus agreeing with JD (!), but I agree with >>>> Peter :-). After years of typing the current names, changing them does >>>> seem somewhat annoying. Worse yet, pg_* is just awkward to type. >> >>> But these utilities are mostly using in scripts -> one type, multi use. >> >> According to whom? The ones that are really at issue I think are >> createuser/createlang/dropuser/droplang, and those seem mainly intended >> for interactive use. In a script you might as well use psql -c. > > I'm curious as to know how often these are used at all. I think I may > have used createuser once and used to use createlang, but I can't recall > ever using the others. > > Michael Glaesemann > grzm seespotcode net > I use createuser, createdb all the time, as well as createlang from time to time. I never use the drop versions. Regards, Dave
Tom Lane wrote:
> Zdenek Kotala <Zdenek.Kotala@Sun.COM> writes:
>> There is group of people who has different opinion. The main reasons for
>> this patch are 1) names could collide with system tools
>
> That argument is purely theoretical, though, since no one has complained
> to us of an *actual* collision. With these utilities having been around
> with their current names for more than ten years, I think we've
> established sufficient squatter's rights on the names ;-).
You have right on linux/*bsd world where postgres is squatter :-) for long time.
But in Solaris world (and probably in HP-UX, AIX...) postgresql does not have
established these squatter's rights. And names as "createuser" is something like
reserved keyword for OS utilities.
Zdenek
Tom Lane wrote:
> Zdenek Kotala <Zdenek.Kotala@Sun.COM> writes:
>> Dave Page wrote:
>>> This is almost as bad as Magnus agreeing with JD (!), but I agree with
>>> Peter :-). After years of typing the current names, changing them does
>>> seem somewhat annoying. Worse yet, pg_* is just awkward to type.
>
>> But these utilities are mostly using in scripts -> one type, multi use.
>
> According to whom? The ones that are really at issue I think are
> createuser/createlang/dropuser/droplang, and those seem mainly intended
> for interactive use. In a script you might as well use psql -c.
>
> The ones that have "db" in the name do not seem to me to need renaming.
> While maybe not obviously connected to Postgres, the chance of a
> collision with some other project is low.
Yes, but if we rename four why does it do for all of them?
> One that I'd personally vote to remove completely is "ipcclean".
> It's always been a crude, incomplete hack anyway, and the reason
> no one has bothered to improve it is that there is next to no use
> for it anymore.
And what's about remove all script commands? Everybody can use psql -c and it
decreases amount of code. Initdb should be replaced by pg_ctl init command. We
can plan it for Postgresql 9.0 as a main change :-).
Zdenek
Jaime Casanova wrote: > > what makes me wonder why doesn't exist "pg_ctl init" > I suggested it in previous discussion on hackers. See http://archives.postgresql.org/pgsql-hackers/2007-06/msg00142.php Zdenek
Where are we on this? Tom thinks we don't want this. TODO has:
* Prefix command-line utilities like createuser with 'pg_'
http://archives.postgresql.org/pgsql-hackers/2007-06/msg00025.php
I think we need to make a decision.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Zdenek Kotala wrote:
> I attach complete patch which renames following binaries
>
> createdb createlang createuser dropdb droplang dropuser clusterdb
> vacuumdb reindexdb
>
> to
>
> pg_createdb pg_createlang pg_createuser pg_dropdb pg_droplang
> pg_dropuser pg_clusterdb pg_vacuumdb pg_reindexdb
>
> Symlinks (or copy on win32) are created for backward compatibility.
>
> This renaming was discussed there:
>
> http://archives.postgresql.org/pgsql-hackers/2007-06/msg00145.php
>
> I create also separate unified patch for documentation.
>
> Zdenek
[ application/x-gzip is not supported, skipping... ]
>
> ---------------------------(end of broadcast)---------------------------
> TIP 7: You can help support the PostgreSQL project by donating at
>
> http://www.postgresql.org/about/donate
--
Bruce Momjian <bruce@momjian.us> http://momjian.us
EnterpriseDB http://postgres.enterprisedb.com
+ If your life is a hard drive, Christ can be your backup. +
Bruce Momjian <bruce@momjian.us> writes: > Where are we on this? Tom thinks we don't want this. TODO has: > * Prefix command-line utilities like createuser with 'pg_' > http://archives.postgresql.org/pgsql-hackers/2007-06/msg00025.php > I think we need to make a decision. Well, I don't have any particular objection to adding pg_ prefixes as alternate names for the existing scripts. However, it's not clear what is the point unless we have the intention to remove the old names at some time in the foreseeable future. And the consensus of the previous thread on -patches seemed to be that nobody except Zdenek was very eager to do that. In any case, there is no value in discussing this further on -patches since the readers of this list already weighed in. If you want to make a decision then it needs to be made on -hackers or -general. regards, tom lane
Tom Lane napsal(a): > Bruce Momjian <bruce@momjian.us> writes: >> Where are we on this? Tom thinks we don't want this. TODO has: >> * Prefix command-line utilities like createuser with 'pg_' >> http://archives.postgresql.org/pgsql-hackers/2007-06/msg00025.php > >> I think we need to make a decision. > > Well, I don't have any particular objection to adding pg_ prefixes > as alternate names for the existing scripts. However, it's not clear > what is the point unless we have the intention to remove the old names > at some time in the foreseeable future. And the consensus of the > previous thread on -patches seemed to be that nobody except Zdenek > was very eager to do that. Yeah, I have to had two reason for this patch. First is my personal, because I don't like these names since 1999. And second is that Solaris architects do not like these names. Especially createdb and createuser. It could clash with some system utility. > In any case, there is no value in discussing this further on -patches > since the readers of this list already weighed in. If you want to > make a decision then it needs to be made on -hackers or -general. I think both are important (maybe general is more important). Maybe we can put also a survey on webpage. On other side. The question is also if we really still need these utilities? If you look on them there are missing features. E.g vacuumdb does not allow make VACUUM FREEZ or set some modern version of vacuum parameters. There is not createtablespace command and so on... Zdenek
On Mon, Mar 24, 2008 at 09:19:42PM +0100, Zdenek Kotala wrote: > Tom Lane napsal(a): >> Bruce Momjian <bruce@momjian.us> writes: >>> Where are we on this? Tom thinks we don't want this. TODO has: >>> * Prefix command-line utilities like createuser with 'pg_' >>> http://archives.postgresql.org/pgsql-hackers/2007-06/msg00025.php >> >>> I think we need to make a decision. >> >> Well, I don't have any particular objection to adding pg_ prefixes >> as alternate names for the existing scripts. However, it's not >> clear what is the point unless we have the intention to remove the >> old names at some time in the foreseeable future. And the >> consensus of the previous thread on -patches seemed to be that >> nobody except Zdenek was very eager to do that. > > Yeah, I have to had two reason for this patch. First is my personal, > because I don't like these names since 1999. And second is that > Solaris architects do not like these names. Especially createdb and > createuser. It could clash with some system utility. +1 for renaming the utilities. Not stomping on the global namespace is one place where MySQL is really out ahead of us. Cheers, David. -- David Fetter <david@fetter.org> http://fetter.org/ Phone: +1 415 235 3778 AIM: dfetter666 Yahoo!: dfetter Skype: davidfetter XMPP: david.fetter@gmail.com Remember to vote! Consider donating to Postgres: http://www.postgresql.org/about/donate
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE----- Hash: SHA1 On Mon, 24 Mar 2008 14:12:19 -0700 David Fetter <david@fetter.org> wrote: > > Yeah, I have to had two reason for this patch. First is my personal, > > because I don't like these names since 1999. And second is that > > Solaris architects do not like these names. Especially createdb and > > createuser. It could clash with some system utility. > > +1 for renaming the utilities. Not stomping on the global namespace > is one place where MySQL is really out ahead of us. - -1 I have not yet seen an argument that has compelled me to actually want to have us enter the Gnome world of binary naming. However, if we *must* go down this route let us please use pgcreatedb *not* pg_createdb. Sincerely, Joshua D. Drake - -- The PostgreSQL Company since 1997: http://www.commandprompt.com/ PostgreSQL Community Conference: http://www.postgresqlconference.org/ United States PostgreSQL Association: http://www.postgresql.us/ Donate to the PostgreSQL Project: http://www.postgresql.org/about/donate -----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE----- Version: GnuPG v1.4.6 (GNU/Linux) iD8DBQFH6BohATb/zqfZUUQRAjm5AJ0QFb1C5/BaAIMjnu/OdqTsCO/1EACfX3XL PNC+b1WIXd1fgJz23e9Gles= =UkoA -----END PGP SIGNATURE-----
Which part of "this is the wrong list" wasn't clear to you guys?
regards, tom lane
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE----- Hash: SHA1 On Mon, 24 Mar 2008 18:30:46 -0400 Tom Lane <tgl@sss.pgh.pa.us> wrote: > Which part of "this is the wrong list" wasn't clear to you guys? I actually didn't even notice. Sorry Tom. Joshua D. Drake - -- The PostgreSQL Company since 1997: http://www.commandprompt.com/ PostgreSQL Community Conference: http://www.postgresqlconference.org/ United States PostgreSQL Association: http://www.postgresql.us/ Donate to the PostgreSQL Project: http://www.postgresql.org/about/donate -----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE----- Version: GnuPG v1.4.6 (GNU/Linux) iD8DBQFH6C1YATb/zqfZUUQRAlenAJwIBnHS0rWIyx2gE/lbeHWEmeGVgACbB/1/ HmcDiHcVbe5zhJcXW8oir1g= =KS1F -----END PGP SIGNATURE-----
FYI, the patch author and survey requestor has withdrawn the patch with
the following comment:
> I think we can reject this patch. I don't process yet output from survey
> on general, but it seems that more users prefer pg_ prefix, but idea of
> "pgc" command seems to be better. I think it is good idea for 9.0 release.
The TODO item has been removed as well:
* Prefix command-line utilities like createuser with 'pg_'
http://archives.postgresql.org/pgsql-hackers/2007-06/msg00025.php
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Zdenek Kotala wrote:
> Tom Lane napsal(a):
> > Bruce Momjian <bruce@momjian.us> writes:
> >> Where are we on this? Tom thinks we don't want this. TODO has:
> >> * Prefix command-line utilities like createuser with 'pg_'
> >> http://archives.postgresql.org/pgsql-hackers/2007-06/msg00025.php
> >
> >> I think we need to make a decision.
> >
> > Well, I don't have any particular objection to adding pg_ prefixes
> > as alternate names for the existing scripts. However, it's not clear
> > what is the point unless we have the intention to remove the old names
> > at some time in the foreseeable future. And the consensus of the
> > previous thread on -patches seemed to be that nobody except Zdenek
> > was very eager to do that.
>
> Yeah, I have to had two reason for this patch. First is my personal, because I
> don't like these names since 1999. And second is that Solaris architects do not
> like these names. Especially createdb and createuser. It could clash with some
> system utility.
>
> > In any case, there is no value in discussing this further on -patches
> > since the readers of this list already weighed in. If you want to
> > make a decision then it needs to be made on -hackers or -general.
>
> I think both are important (maybe general is more important). Maybe we can put
> also a survey on webpage.
>
> On other side. The question is also if we really still need these utilities? If
> you look on them there are missing features. E.g vacuumdb does not allow make
> VACUUM FREEZ or set some modern version of vacuum parameters. There is not
> createtablespace command and so on...
>
> Zdenek
--
Bruce Momjian <bruce@momjian.us> http://momjian.us
EnterpriseDB http://enterprisedb.com
+ If your life is a hard drive, Christ can be your backup. +