On Fri, May 6, 2011 at 2:30 PM, Alvaro Herrera <[email protected]> wrote: > Excerpts from Magnus Hagander's message of vie may 06 14:30:27 -0300 2011: >> On Fri, May 6, 2011 at 19:18, Peter Eisentraut <[email protected]> wrote: >> > The pg_basebackup reference page is currently under "Client >> > Applications" [0]. I think it's more of a server application, because >> > it's what you'd run instead of initdb on the server. Should it be moved >> > to the "Server Applications" section? >> >> Not sure I buy that argument. pg_dump/pg_dumpall/pg_restore are under >> client applications. They're something you run *alongside* initdb and >> not instead, sure.. But they're all backup tools. > > Is there really a dichotomy here? Client/server? Maybe we just need > another category, "administrative applications" or something like that.
You can draw a clear line between applications which can connect to a server remotely, and those which need to be executed on the actual server machine, and thus distinguish "Client" from "Server" Applications. If we use that logic, I think pg_config should be listed as a "Server Application" and pg_basebackup should remain a "Client Application", and we'd be consistent. I think trying to break the Client Applications down into administrative and non-administrative isn't very helpful -- the only client applications I see which are clearly non-administrative (i.e. non-superusers would normally use) are psql and ecpg. Everything else seems like stuff you either generally need superuser privs for (create*, drop*, etc.) or are tools typically used by the server admin (taking and restoring backups). Josh -- Sent via pgsql-docs mailing list ([email protected]) To make changes to your subscription: http://www.postgresql.org/mailpref/pgsql-docs
