Zdenek Kotala <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes: > There is group of people who has different opinion. The main reasons for > this patch are 1) names could collide with system tools
That argument is purely theoretical, though, since no one has complained to us of an *actual* collision. With these utilities having been around with their current names for more than ten years, I think we've established sufficient squatter's rights on the names ;-). No doubt we'd do it differently if starting in a green field, but we're not starting in a green field. There's enough usage precedent now that I doubt we can ever remove the existing names, which leaves me wondering what is the point. > By the way my original idea was create new command "pg_cmd", which > integrates all in one include missing commands(e.g. createtablespace). There doesn't seem to be anyone but you who feels any attraction to that concept. These utilities have a wide enough difference in behavior and intended usage that ISTM force-fitting them into a single binary would just increase confusion and difficulty of use. regards, tom lane ---------------------------(end of broadcast)--------------------------- TIP 3: Have you checked our extensive FAQ? http://www.postgresql.org/docs/faq