On Sat, Apr 11, 2020 at 05:50:56PM -0400, Alvaro Herrera wrote: > On 2020-Apr-11, Robert Haas wrote: >> I *would* like to find a way to address the proliferation of binaries, >> because I've got other things I'd like to do that would require >> creating still more of them, and until we come up with a scalable >> solution that makes everybody happy, there's going to be progressively >> more complaining every time. One possible solution is to adopt the >> 'git' approach and decide we're going to have one 'pg' command (or >> whatever we call it). I think the way that 'git' does it is that all >> of the real binaries are stored in a directory that users are not >> expected to have in their path, and the 'git' wrapper just looks for >> one based on the name of the subcommand. > > I like this idea so much that I already proposed it in the past[1], so +1. > > [1] https://postgr.es/m/[email protected]
Yeah, their stuff is nice. Another nice thing is that git has the possibility to scan as well for custom scripts as long as they respect the naming convention, like having a custom script called "git-foo", that can be called as "git foo". -- Michael
signature.asc
Description: PGP signature
