On Wed, 2019-03-27 at 15:07 +0100, Andreas Karlsson wrote: > [EXTERNAL SOURCE] > > > > On 3/27/19 2:51 PM, Tomas Vondra wrote: > > I think the consensus in this thread (and the previous ancient ones) is > > that it's not worth it. It's one thing to introduce new commands with the > > pg_ prefix, and it's a completely different thing to rename existing ones. > > That has inherent costs, and as Tom pointed out the burden would fall on > > people using PostgreSQL (and that's rather undesirable). > > > > I personally don't see why having commands without pg_ prefix would be > > an issue. Especially when placed in a separate directory, which eliminates > > the possibility of conflict with other commands. > > I buy that it may not be worth breaking tens of thousands of scripts to > fix this, but I disagree about it not being an issue. Most Linux > distributions add PostgreSQL's executables in to a directory which is in > the default $PATH (/usr/bin in the case of Debian). And even if it would > be installed into a separate directory there would still be a conflict > as soon as that directory is added to $PATH. > > And I think that it is also relatively easy to confuse adduser and > createuser when reading a script. Nothing about the name createuser > indicates that it will create a role in an SQL database. > > Andreas >
theres nothing about createuser or adduser( useradd on my system, adduser doesn't exist on mine ) that indicates that either would/should create a user in the system either. That's what man and -h/--help are for. If you don't know what an executable does, don't invoke it until you do. That's a basic premise for any executable. reid
