On Sat, Mar 18, 2017 at 9:23 PM, Tom Lane <t...@sss.pgh.pa.us> wrote:
> Magnus Hagander <mag...@hagander.net> writes: > > createuser, dropuser - definitely pollutes the namespace, people do > > sometimes try them for the wrong thing. Unlike the db ones they do add > > value though -- I don't think we have a psql way of in a single command > > doing what --pwprompt on createuser does, do we? But given that we are in > > the process of breaking a lot of other scripts for 10, perhaps we should > > rename it to pg_createuser? > > I'm not particularly on board with arguments like "we already broke a ton > of stuff so let's break some more". Eventually you've managed to create > a daunting barrier to upgrading at all. > The argument is more that if we are going to break it, now is a good time to do it because we are already forcing people to review their scripts. If we decide not to break it at all that's one thing. But if we *are* going to break it, it's better to do it in 10 than in 11. > I think a more reasonable way to proceed is to install symlinks > pg_createuser -> createuser (or the other direction), mark the older names > as deprecated, and announce that we'll remove the old names a few releases > from now. That gives people time to adjust. > I'd suggest doing it in the other direction, but yeah, that seems like a softer way to handle it. As long as we clearly document them as such. Perhaps we should even have them output a little "hey you should be using pg_xyz" if they are used by the wrong name, but I wonder if that might break things. Maybe we should handle createdb likewise, rather than just kicking it to > the curb. I know I use it quite often; it's less typing than psql -c > 'create database ...' postgres, and still would be with a pg_ prefix. > As long as they have a pg_ prefix, I don't see much harm in them being there, they're tiny. It's not like they're a huge maintenance burden. -- Magnus Hagander Me: http://www.hagander.net/ Work: http://www.redpill-linpro.com/
