On 27/03/2019 15:26, Tomas Vondra wrote: > On Wed, Mar 27, 2019 at 03:07:24PM +0100, Andreas Karlsson wrote: >> 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. >> > > That is true, of course.
It's only partially true, for example on my systems: Debian/Ubuntu: $ readlink -f /usr/bin/createuser /usr/share/postgresql-common/pg_wrapper Centos (PGDG package): readlink -f /usr/bin/createdb /usr/pgsql-11/bin/createdb This also means that the idea about symlinks is something packages already do. -- Petr Jelinek http://www.2ndQuadrant.com/ PostgreSQL Development, 24x7 Support, Training & Services