It's definitely a good thing, but needs very careful thought on effects to customers. We can try to list these effects as much as possile.
On Wed, Jul 13, 2016 at 1:55 PM, Yi Jin <[email protected]> wrote: > I think it is a must-do, but some concerns of customer using convention and > legacy applications, scripts etc. > > On Wed, Jul 13, 2016 at 1:44 PM, 陶征霖 <[email protected]> wrote: > > > Good idea, but need quite a lot of effort and may also affect custormer > > behavior. Should handle it carefully. > > > > 2016-07-13 9:54 GMT+08:00 Ivan Weng <[email protected]>: > > > > > Agree with this good idea. But as Paul said, there are maybe already > many > > > users use greeenplum_path.sh or something else in their environment. So > > we > > > need to think about it. > > > > > > > > > Regards, > > > Ivan > > > > > > On Wed, Jul 13, 2016 at 9:31 AM, Paul Guo <[email protected]> wrote: > > > > > > > I've asked this before. Seems that affects some old users. I'm not > sure > > > > about the details. > > > > I agree that we should change it to a better name in a release. > > > > > > > > 2016-07-13 9:25 GMT+08:00 Roman Shaposhnik <[email protected]>: > > > > > > > > > On Tue, Jul 12, 2016 at 6:21 PM, Xiang Sheng <[email protected]> > > > wrote: > > > > > > Agree . @xunzhang. > > > > > > However , some greenplum strings can be easily replaced , but > there > > > are > > > > > too > > > > > > many in the code or comments. Changing all of them costs too > much > > > > > efforts. > > > > > > > > > > > > So changing the strings that users can see is enough. > > > > > > > > > > Huge +1 to this! Btw, is this something we may be able to tackle in > > our > > > > > next Apache release? > > > > > > > > > > Thanks, > > > > > Roman. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > -- > > Thanks, > > Zhenglin > > >
