On Wed, Mar 20, 2019 at 11:06 AM Andreas Karlsson <andr...@proxel.se> wrote:
> On 3/19/19 11:19 AM, Fred .Flintstone wrote: > > PostgreSQL pollutes the file system with lots of binaries that it is > > not obvious that they belong to PostgreSQL. > > > > Such as "/usr/bin/createdb", etc. > > > > It would be better if these files were renamed to be prefixed with > > pg_, such as pg_createdb. > > Or even better postgresql-createdb then be reachable by through a > > "postgresql" wrapper script. > > Hi, > > This topic has been discussed before e.g. in 2008 in > https://www.postgresql.org/message-id/47EA5CC0.8040102%40sun.com and > also more recently but I cannot find it in the archives right now. > > I am personally in favor of renaming e.g. createdb to pg_createdb, since > it is not obvious that createdb belongs to PostgreSQL when reading a > script or looking in /usr/bin, but we would need a some kind of > deprecation cycle here or we would suddenly break tons of people's scripts I wouldn't be opposed to this, but I would note two points on a deprecation cycle: 1 Given that people may have tools that work with all supported versions of PostgreSQL, this needs to be a long cycle, and 2. Managing that cycle makes it a little bit of a tough sell. > . > > And as for the git-like solution with a wrapper script, that seems to be > the modern way to do things but would be an even larger breakage and I > am not convinced the advantage would be worth it especially since our > executables are not as closely related and consistent as for example git's. > Git commands may be related, but I would actually argue that git commands have a lot of inconsistency because of this structure, See, for example, http://stevelosh.com/blog/2013/04/git-koans/ > > Andreas > > -- Best Regards, Chris Travers Head of Database Tel: +49 162 9037 210 | Skype: einhverfr | www.adjust.com Saarbrücker Straße 37a, 10405 Berlin
