On Wed, May 27, 2020 at 4:51 AM Magnus Hagander <mag...@hagander.net> wrote: > As mentioned at least once before, the "pg" name is already taken in posix. > Granted it has been removed now, but it was removed from posix in 2018, which > I think is nowhere near soon enough to "steal. See for example > https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pg_(Unix)
The previous discussion of this general topic starts at http://postgr.es/m/ca+tgmozqmdy7nlrq96nlm-wrnmnpy90qdmvz6ltjo941gwg...@mail.gmail.com and the discussion of this particular issue starts at https://www.postgresql.org/message-id/15135.1586703479%40sss.pgh.pa.us I think I agree with what Andres said on that thread: rather than waiting a long time to see what happens, we should grab the name before somebody else does. As also discussed on that thread, perhaps we should have the official name of the binary be 'pgsql' with 'pg' as a symlink that some packagers might choose to omit. -- Robert Haas EnterpriseDB: http://www.enterprisedb.com The Enterprise PostgreSQL Company
