On Fri, Apr 12, 2019 at 3:20 PM Alvaro Herrera <alvhe...@2ndquadrant.com> wrote:
> On 2019-Apr-12, Daniel Gustafsson wrote: > > > There are many good reasons for the changes proposed in this thread, but > I'm > > not sure if discoverability is one. Relying on autocompleting a > filename to > > figure out existing tooling for database maintenance and DBA type > operations > > seems like a fragile usecase. > > > > If commandline discoverability is of importance, providing a summary of > the > > tools in "man postgresql" seems like a better option. > > The first comment in the LWN article: > "It's broken and obviously a bad idea but we've been doing it for so long > we > shouldn't attempt to fix it" > > IMO the future is longer than the past, and has more users, so let's do > it right instead of perpetuating the mistakes. > I agree we should look at fixing these. However I have two concerns. 1. naming things is surprisingly hard. How sure are we that we can do this right? Can we come up with a correct name for initdb? Maybe pg_createcluster? 2. How long would our deprecation cycle be? 5 years? 10 years? Given that people may need to support multiple versions I would propose no warnings until both formats are supported, then warnings for 2 years, then drop the old ones. > > > ... unless you think PostgreSQL is going to become irrelevant before > 2050. > > -- > Álvaro Herrera https://www.2ndQuadrant.com/ > PostgreSQL Development, 24x7 Support, Remote DBA, Training & Services > -- Best Regards, Chris Travers Head of Database Tel: +49 162 9037 210 | Skype: einhverfr | www.adjust.com Saarbrücker Straße 37a, 10405 Berlin
