David Fetter wrote:
On Fri, Jun 08, 2007 at 08:12:22PM -0500, Jim C. Nasby wrote:
On Tue, Jun 05, 2007 at 05:52:39PM -0000, Andrew Hammond wrote:
On Jun 5, 9:19 am, [EMAIL PROTECTED] (Alvaro Herrera) wrote:
Zdenek Kotala wrote:
Tom Lane wrote:
Bruce Momjian <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
Is this a TODO?
I don't think so; there is no demand from anybody but Zdenek to remove
those programs. Has it ever even come up before?
Personally I found really strange to have "createuser" and "createdb"
shipped by Postgres when I started using it. I just didn't complain.
+1. Given the prevalence of the pg_foo convention, those names are
clunky. So is initdb. I'm less creative than Zdenek, so I'd suggest
simply renaming to pg_createuser and friends with the same command
line options as the originals. Have the binaries check $0 and emit a
warning about using the deprecated name to STDERR if called by a name
that doesn't have the pg_ prefix. Default to symlinking the old names
for backwards compatibility until 9.0.
It's a lot easier just to prefix the names than to do something
I agree that it is easier to implement. But my original idea was create
one command which should be easy expandable. For example add LIST
command which it allow to get list of users, roles, langs, databases
(instead of psql -l). There is also no way how to create table space?
Will we add command pg_createtablespace ? I think better is keep it in
one binary instead extend list of deliverable object.
I think for people is better to remember pg_cmd --help instead looking
for pg_something command. And a lot of code is share anyway. The nice
example is ZFS implementation. You need only know two commands (ZPOOL
and ZFS) to configure everything include NFS sharing.
---------------------------(end of broadcast)---------------------------
TIP 2: Don't 'kill -9' the postmaster