On 2017-03-18 16:23:17 -0400, Tom Lane 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.
+1 > 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. +1 > 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. I think we should add pg_createdb, and do a normal deprecation cycle for removing createdb. I wish 'pg' wasn't an already used binary name. It'd be much nicer if we had a '/usr/bin/pg' wrapper binary in the git style, that we could easily expand over time, without hitting new conflicts. I'd even consider a '/usr/bin/pgsql' that has commands for all our binaries a considerable improvement in the long term. Greetings, Andres Freund -- Sent via pgsql-hackers mailing list (pgsql-hackers@postgresql.org) To make changes to your subscription: http://www.postgresql.org/mailpref/pgsql-hackers
