Re: [HACKERS] Command tags in create/drop scripts
Added to TODO: * Prefix command-line utilities like createuser with 'pg_' http://archives.postgresql.org/pgsql-hackers/2007-06/msg00025.php --- 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. pg_ctl -D path init instead of initdb command? Seems a reasonable thing to do too. Harder to type for developers, but how much of a problem this is for real users? And developers can script the thing anyway so I don't think this is a real problem. One idea is to move the offending binaries into libexec, and have pg_ctl or other helpers (pg_cmd) call them; and where compatibility with the old versions is requested, create symlinks in bindir. -- Alvaro Herrerahttp://www.CommandPrompt.com/ The PostgreSQL Company - Command Prompt, Inc. -- Bruce Momjian [EMAIL PROTECTED]http://momjian.us EnterpriseDB http://postgres.enterprisedb.com + If your life is a hard drive, Christ can be your backup. + -- Sent via pgsql-hackers mailing list (pgsql-hackers@postgresql.org) To make changes to your subscription: http://www.postgresql.org/mailpref/pgsql-hackers
Re: [HACKERS] Command tags in create/drop scripts
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 -, 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. +1 +1 It's a lot easier just to prefix the names than to do something clever. 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. Zdenek ---(end of broadcast)--- TIP 2: Don't 'kill -9' the postmaster
Re: [HACKERS] Command tags in create/drop scripts
Joshua D. Drake [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes: Jim C. Nasby wrote: On Tue, Jun 05, 2007 at 05:52:39PM -, Andrew Hammond wrote: +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. +1 +1 I like this better than the original proposal, too. Doing more than this seems like more work and more confusion for users than the problem justifies. regards, tom lane ---(end of broadcast)--- TIP 7: You can help support the PostgreSQL project by donating at http://www.postgresql.org/about/donate
Re: [HACKERS] Command tags in create/drop scripts
On Fri, Jun 08, 2007 at 08:12:22PM -0500, Jim C. Nasby wrote: On Tue, Jun 05, 2007 at 05:52:39PM -, 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. +1 +1 It's a lot easier just to prefix the names than to do something clever. Cheers, D -- David Fetter [EMAIL PROTECTED] http://fetter.org/ phone: +1 415 235 3778AIM: dfetter666 Skype: davidfetter Remember to vote! Consider donating to PostgreSQL: http://www.postgresql.org/about/donate ---(end of broadcast)--- TIP 7: You can help support the PostgreSQL project by donating at http://www.postgresql.org/about/donate
Re: [HACKERS] Command tags in create/drop scripts
On Tue, Jun 05, 2007 at 05:52:39PM -, 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. +1 -- Jim Nasby [EMAIL PROTECTED] EnterpriseDB http://enterprisedb.com 512.569.9461 (cell) pgpFvOvoY19iH.pgp Description: PGP signature
Re: [HACKERS] Command tags in create/drop scripts
Jim C. Nasby wrote: On Tue, Jun 05, 2007 at 05:52:39PM -, 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. +1 +1 -- === The PostgreSQL Company: Command Prompt, Inc. === Sales/Support: +1.503.667.4564 || 24x7/Emergency: +1.800.492.2240 Providing the most comprehensive PostgreSQL solutions since 1997 http://www.commandprompt.com/ Donate to the PostgreSQL Project: http://www.postgresql.org/about/donate PostgreSQL Replication: http://www.commandprompt.com/products/ ---(end of broadcast)--- TIP 6: explain analyze is your friend
Re: [HACKERS] Command tags in create/drop scripts
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? Tom, Bruce I started with postgres 6.5 as administrator and from this version names of these utilities have been for me little bit confusing and annoying. I have hoped that it will be changed in the future. It is my personal feeling since 1999. I prefer to add on TODO list and also question is why we don't have: pg_ctl -D path init instead of initdb command? Zdenek ---(end of broadcast)--- TIP 5: don't forget to increase your free space map settings
Re: [HACKERS] Command tags in create/drop scripts
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. pg_ctl -D path init instead of initdb command? Seems a reasonable thing to do too. Harder to type for developers, but how much of a problem this is for real users? And developers can script the thing anyway so I don't think this is a real problem. One idea is to move the offending binaries into libexec, and have pg_ctl or other helpers (pg_cmd) call them; and where compatibility with the old versions is requested, create symlinks in bindir. -- Alvaro Herrerahttp://www.CommandPrompt.com/ The PostgreSQL Company - Command Prompt, Inc. ---(end of broadcast)--- TIP 6: explain analyze is your friend
Re: [HACKERS] Command tags in create/drop scripts
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. Andrew ---(end of broadcast)--- TIP 2: Don't 'kill -9' the postmaster
Re: [HACKERS] Command tags in create/drop scripts
Tom Lane napsal(a): Andrew Dunstan [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes: Zdenek Kotala wrote: And what about replace all scripts by one command e.g pg_cmd with following interface: Well, I don't think rolling up the miscellaneous commands into a single binary with behaviour dependent on arg[0] is a bad idea. I don't think that responds to Zdenek's complaint though. He's unhappy about polluting /usr/bin with commands like createuser --- which is not an unreasonable gripe. AFAICS it doesn't help if createuser is a link to a single executable rather than a file of its own. Yes, It was one idea (after midnight :-) how to keep backward compatibility for next few releases, but better solution is keep old binaries for couple of release cycles. But in the light of backwards-compatibility requirements, I can't see us removing createuser from the distribution ... not in 8.4, nor several releases thereafter. I agree, I only want to start discussion about new command which will replace old binaries. Old binaries will be marked as obsolete and they will be removed e.g. in 9.0. Until we do not have the new command we can not start thinking about remove old one. I think we can have new command ready for 8.4. Zdenek ---(end of broadcast)--- TIP 6: explain analyze is your friend
Re: [HACKERS] Command tags in create/drop scripts
Is this a TODO? --- Zdenek Kotala wrote: Tom Lane napsal(a): Andrew Dunstan [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes: Zdenek Kotala wrote: And what about replace all scripts by one command e.g pg_cmd with following interface: Well, I don't think rolling up the miscellaneous commands into a single binary with behaviour dependent on arg[0] is a bad idea. I don't think that responds to Zdenek's complaint though. He's unhappy about polluting /usr/bin with commands like createuser --- which is not an unreasonable gripe. AFAICS it doesn't help if createuser is a link to a single executable rather than a file of its own. Yes, It was one idea (after midnight :-) how to keep backward compatibility for next few releases, but better solution is keep old binaries for couple of release cycles. But in the light of backwards-compatibility requirements, I can't see us removing createuser from the distribution ... not in 8.4, nor several releases thereafter. I agree, I only want to start discussion about new command which will replace old binaries. Old binaries will be marked as obsolete and they will be removed e.g. in 9.0. Until we do not have the new command we can not start thinking about remove old one. I think we can have new command ready for 8.4. Zdenek ---(end of broadcast)--- TIP 6: explain analyze is your friend -- Bruce Momjian [EMAIL PROTECTED] http://momjian.us EnterpriseDB http://www.enterprisedb.com + If your life is a hard drive, Christ can be your backup. + ---(end of broadcast)--- TIP 6: explain analyze is your friend
Re: [HACKERS] Command tags in create/drop scripts
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? regards, tom lane ---(end of broadcast)--- TIP 2: Don't 'kill -9' the postmaster
Re: [HACKERS] Command tags in create/drop scripts
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? No. Agreed. -- Bruce Momjian [EMAIL PROTECTED] http://momjian.us EnterpriseDB http://www.enterprisedb.com + If your life is a hard drive, Christ can be your backup. + ---(end of broadcast)--- TIP 4: Have you searched our list archives? http://archives.postgresql.org
Re: [HACKERS] Command tags in create/drop scripts
It's always seemed a little odd to me that Postgres should install a command called createuser or createlang, because it's entirely non-obvious on first examination that these commands (which often live in /usr/bin) have any connections with PostgreSQL. Shouldn't there be at least be a pg in the name somewhere? ...Robert -Original Message- From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of Tom Lane Sent: Monday, June 04, 2007 10:31 AM To: Bruce Momjian Cc: Zdenek Kotala; Andrew Dunstan; Peter Eisentraut; pgsql-hackers@postgresql.org Subject: Re: [HACKERS] Command tags in create/drop scripts 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? regards, tom lane ---(end of broadcast)--- TIP 2: Don't 'kill -9' the postmaster ---(end of broadcast)--- TIP 9: In versions below 8.0, the planner will ignore your desire to choose an index scan if your joining column's datatypes do not match
Re: [HACKERS] Command tags in create/drop scripts
Peter Eisentraut wrote: The messages output by the scripts always seemed unnecessary to me, e.g., $ createdb foo CREATE DATABASE A Unix program (hi Magnus) shouldn't need to say anything if the requested action succeeded. I believe the history of this output is actually that these scripts simply used to call psql and no one really questioned why the output should be this way. There are also some inconsistencies, e.g., createlang doesn't output anything, and createuser outputs CREATE ROLE. I would just remove all this, but I suppose this will be controversial? Removal of the tags is fine with me. -- Bruce Momjian [EMAIL PROTECTED] http://momjian.us EnterpriseDB http://www.enterprisedb.com + If your life is a hard drive, Christ can be your backup. + ---(end of broadcast)--- TIP 9: In versions below 8.0, the planner will ignore your desire to choose an index scan if your joining column's datatypes do not match
Re: [HACKERS] Command tags in create/drop scripts
Peter Eisentraut wrote: The messages output by the scripts always seemed unnecessary to me, e.g., $ createdb foo CREATE DATABASE A Unix program (hi Magnus) shouldn't need to say anything if the requested action succeeded. I believe the history of this output is actually that these scripts simply used to call psql and no one really questioned why the output should be this way. There are also some inconsistencies, e.g., createlang doesn't output anything, and createuser outputs CREATE ROLE. I would just remove all this, but I suppose this will be controversial? And what about replace all scripts by one command e.g pg_cmd with following interface: pg_cmd create database ... create role ... drop database ... list database ... It solves potential name collision (for example createuser should collide with other unix command) and output is easy maintainable in one application. Zdenek ---(end of broadcast)--- TIP 4: Have you searched our list archives? http://archives.postgresql.org
Re: [HACKERS] Command tags in create/drop scripts
Zdenek Kotala wrote: And what about replace all scripts by one command e.g pg_cmd with following interface: pg_cmd create database ... create role ... drop database ... list database ... It solves potential name collision (for example createuser should collide with other unix command) and output is easy maintainable in one application. And we'll break a million applications that rely on the command names. We really don't have the luxury of being able to revisit every design decision that's ever been made. cheers andrew ---(end of broadcast)--- TIP 6: explain analyze is your friend
Re: [HACKERS] Command tags in create/drop scripts
Andrew Dunstan [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes: Zdenek Kotala wrote: And what about replace all scripts by one command e.g pg_cmd with following interface: pg_cmd create database ... And we'll break a million applications that rely on the command names. If you want that, it already exists: it's pronounced psql -c regards, tom lane ---(end of broadcast)--- TIP 4: Have you searched our list archives? http://archives.postgresql.org
Re: [HACKERS] Command tags in create/drop scripts
Tom Lane wrote: Andrew Dunstan [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes: Zdenek Kotala wrote: And what about replace all scripts by one command e.g pg_cmd with following interface: pg_cmd create database ... And we'll break a million applications that rely on the command names. Compatibility is possible solve with parsing arg[0]. If old name appears there command line will be parsed in old style... This functionally should keep there for some transition interval. Packager will be responsible if he create links for backward compatibility or not. If you want that, it already exists: it's pronounced psql -c No, it is not solution, because you still have binaries with strange names (e.g. createuser) on the disk. Zdenek ---(end of broadcast)--- TIP 6: explain analyze is your friend
Re: [HACKERS] Command tags in create/drop scripts
Zdenek Kotala wrote: Tom Lane wrote: Andrew Dunstan [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes: Zdenek Kotala wrote: And what about replace all scripts by one command e.g pg_cmd with following interface: pg_cmd create database ... And we'll break a million applications that rely on the command names. Compatibility is possible solve with parsing arg[0]. If old name appears there command line will be parsed in old style... This functionally should keep there for some transition interval. Packager will be responsible if he create links for backward compatibility or not. Well, I don't think rolling up the miscellaneous commands into a single binary with behaviour dependent on arg[0] is a bad idea. I don't think it's something to be looked at during feature freeze, though, especially given our backlog. I think we'd need a good long lead time before we removed the old names from our default install - at least one release cycle, so it would be two years or more before this became any sort of reality. cheers andrew ---(end of broadcast)--- TIP 6: explain analyze is your friend
Re: [HACKERS] Command tags in create/drop scripts
Andrew Dunstan [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes: Zdenek Kotala wrote: And what about replace all scripts by one command e.g pg_cmd with following interface: Well, I don't think rolling up the miscellaneous commands into a single binary with behaviour dependent on arg[0] is a bad idea. I don't think that responds to Zdenek's complaint though. He's unhappy about polluting /usr/bin with commands like createuser --- which is not an unreasonable gripe. AFAICS it doesn't help if createuser is a link to a single executable rather than a file of its own. But in the light of backwards-compatibility requirements, I can't see us removing createuser from the distribution ... not in 8.4, nor several releases thereafter. Sun's certainly free to not ship createuser in their packaging of PG, and see what sort of push-back they get. regards, tom lane ---(end of broadcast)--- TIP 7: You can help support the PostgreSQL project by donating at http://www.postgresql.org/about/donate
Re: [HACKERS] Command tags in create/drop scripts
On 5/31/07, Peter Eisentraut [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: The messages output by the scripts always seemed unnecessary to me, e.g ., $ createdb foo CREATE DATABASE A Unix program (hi Magnus) shouldn't need to say anything if the requested action succeeded. I believe the history of this output is actually that these scripts simply used to call psql and no one really questioned why the output should be this way. There are also some inconsistencies, e.g., createlang doesn't output anything, and createuser outputs CREATE ROLE. I would just remove all this, but I suppose this will be controversial? Can it me made to return an integer like most UNIX commands do? This helps immensely when writing shell scripts. Thanks!
Re: [HACKERS] Command tags in create/drop scripts
CAJ CAJ [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes: Can it me made to return an integer like most UNIX commands do? This helps immensely when writing shell scripts. Don't they do that already? If not, that's a bug quite independent of Peter's cosmetic concern. regards, tom lane ---(end of broadcast)--- TIP 7: You can help support the PostgreSQL project by donating at http://www.postgresql.org/about/donate
Re: [HACKERS] Command tags in create/drop scripts
On 5/31/07, CAJ CAJ [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: Can it me made to return an integer like most UNIX commands do? This helps immensely when writing shell scripts. Don't they do that already? If not, that's a bug quite independent of Peter's cosmetic concern. Ah, I just tested it. create/drop user commands does return an integer. It's not mentioned in the manpages though. BTW, there is a -q option to quieten the output.
