Re: [HACKERS] Removing binaries (was: createlang/droplang deprecated)

2017-03-20 Thread Jan de Visser
On Monday, March 20, 2017 3:30:49 PM EDT Robert Haas wrote: > On Sat, Mar 18, 2017 at 4:12 PM, Magnus Hagander wrote: > > createdb, dropdb - also not clear they're about postgres, more likely to > > be > > used by mistake but not that bad. That said, do they add any *value*

Re: [HACKERS] Removing binaries (was: createlang/droplang deprecated)

2017-03-20 Thread Robert Haas
On Sat, Mar 18, 2017 at 4:12 PM, Magnus Hagander wrote: > createdb, dropdb - also not clear they're about postgres, more likely to be > used by mistake but not that bad. That said, do they add any *value* beyond > what you can do with psql -c "CREATE DATABASE"? I don't really

Re: [HACKERS] Removing binaries (was: createlang/droplang deprecated)

2017-03-19 Thread Peter Eisentraut
On 3/18/17 16:12, Magnus Hagander wrote: > But given that we are in the process of breaking a lot of other scripts > for 10, I don't think the xlog renaming really affects this area. > perhaps we should rename it to pg_createuser? I'm not keen on doing that now, but if we were to do it at some

Re: [HACKERS] Removing binaries (was: createlang/droplang deprecated)

2017-03-19 Thread Joshua D. Drake
On 03/19/2017 01:01 PM, Tom Lane wrote: Andreas Karlsson writes: As for if we should have backwards compatibility for the old names I am leaning weakly for providing it in the case of createuser. I can see end users being pissed off that the createuser command is suddenly

Re: [HACKERS] Removing binaries (was: createlang/droplang deprecated)

2017-03-19 Thread Tom Lane
Andres Freund writes: > 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

Re: [HACKERS] Removing binaries (was: createlang/droplang deprecated)

2017-03-19 Thread Tom Lane
Stephen Frost writes: > If we take your approach to its logical conclustion then we should be > planning to maintain all user-facing deprecated features for as long as > there is a version where it exists in a non-deprecated fashion, in other > words for 5 years, if we assume

Re: [HACKERS] Removing binaries (was: createlang/droplang deprecated)

2017-03-19 Thread Andres Freund
On 2017-03-18 16:23:17 -0400, Tom Lane wrote: > Magnus Hagander 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

Re: [HACKERS] Removing binaries (was: createlang/droplang deprecated)

2017-03-19 Thread Tom Lane
Andreas Karlsson writes: > As for if we should have backwards compatibility for the old names I am > leaning weakly for providing it in the case of createuser. I can see end > users being pissed off that the createuser command is suddenly gone > without any warning when they

Re: [HACKERS] Removing binaries (was: createlang/droplang deprecated)

2017-03-19 Thread Stephen Frost
Greetings, * Andreas Karlsson (andr...@proxel.se) wrote: > On 03/19/2017 07:35 PM, Stephen Frost wrote: > >* Tom Lane (t...@sss.pgh.pa.us) wrote: > >>Stephen Frost writes: > >>(Or in other words, we've been getting along fine with these script names > >>for circa twenty

Re: [HACKERS] Removing binaries (was: createlang/droplang deprecated)

2017-03-19 Thread Andreas Karlsson
On 03/19/2017 07:35 PM, Stephen Frost wrote: * Tom Lane (t...@sss.pgh.pa.us) wrote: Stephen Frost writes: (Or in other words, we've been getting along fine with these script names for circa twenty years, so what's the rush to change them RIGHT NOW?) To be clear, I'm not

Re: [HACKERS] Removing binaries (was: createlang/droplang deprecated)

2017-03-19 Thread Stephen Frost
* Tom Lane (t...@sss.pgh.pa.us) wrote: > Stephen Frost writes: > > * Tom Lane (t...@sss.pgh.pa.us) wrote: > >> It's not a "half measure", it's providing a sane upgrade path. > > > I really don't see it that way. We're talking about existing scripts > > which will break if

Re: [HACKERS] Removing binaries (was: createlang/droplang deprecated)

2017-03-19 Thread Tom Lane
Stephen Frost writes: > * Tom Lane (t...@sss.pgh.pa.us) wrote: >> It's not a "half measure", it's providing a sane upgrade path. > I really don't see it that way. We're talking about existing scripts > which will break if the binary is renamed. That means that, today, >

Re: [HACKERS] Removing binaries (was: createlang/droplang deprecated)

2017-03-19 Thread Stephen Frost
* Tom Lane (t...@sss.pgh.pa.us) wrote: > Stephen Frost writes: > > * Magnus Hagander (mag...@hagander.net) wrote: > >> On Sat, Mar 18, 2017 at 9:23 PM, Tom Lane wrote: > >>> I think a more reasonable way to proceed is to install symlinks > >>>

Re: [HACKERS] Removing binaries (was: createlang/droplang deprecated)

2017-03-19 Thread Tom Lane
Stephen Frost writes: > * Magnus Hagander (mag...@hagander.net) wrote: >> On Sat, Mar 18, 2017 at 9:23 PM, Tom Lane wrote: >>> I think a more reasonable way to proceed is to install symlinks >>> pg_createuser -> createuser (or the other direction), mark

Re: [HACKERS] Removing binaries (was: createlang/droplang deprecated)

2017-03-19 Thread Stephen Frost
* Magnus Hagander (mag...@hagander.net) wrote: > On Sat, Mar 18, 2017 at 9:23 PM, Tom Lane wrote: > > Magnus Hagander writes: > > > createuser, dropuser - definitely pollutes the namespace, people do > > > sometimes try them for the wrong thing. Unlike

Re: [HACKERS] Removing binaries (was: createlang/droplang deprecated)

2017-03-19 Thread Magnus Hagander
On Sat, Mar 18, 2017 at 9:23 PM, Tom Lane wrote: > Magnus Hagander 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

Re: [HACKERS] Removing binaries (was: createlang/droplang deprecated)

2017-03-19 Thread Magnus Hagander
On Sun, Mar 19, 2017 at 1:44 PM, Andreas Karlsson wrote: > On 03/18/2017 09:12 PM, Magnus Hagander wrote: > >> createdb, dropdb - also not clear they're about postgres, more likely to >> be used by mistake but not that bad. That said, do they add any *value* >> beyond what you

Re: [HACKERS] Removing binaries (was: createlang/droplang deprecated)

2017-03-19 Thread Andreas Karlsson
On 03/18/2017 09:12 PM, Magnus Hagander wrote: createdb, dropdb - also not clear they're about postgres, more likely to be used by mistake but not that bad. That said, do they add any *value* beyond what you can do with psql -c "CREATE DATABASE"? I don't really see one, so I'd suggest dropping

Re: [HACKERS] Removing binaries (was: createlang/droplang deprecated)

2017-03-19 Thread Joshua D. Drake
On 03/18/2017 01:12 PM, Magnus Hagander wrote: Magnus Hagander > writes: 2017-03-18 14:00 GMT+01:00 Peter Eisentraut >: createuser, dropuser - definitely pollutes the

Re: [HACKERS] Removing binaries (was: createlang/droplang deprecated)

2017-03-18 Thread Tom Lane
Magnus Hagander 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

[HACKERS] Removing binaries (was: createlang/droplang deprecated)

2017-03-18 Thread Magnus Hagander
Magnus Hagander writes: >> 2017-03-18 14:00 GMT+01:00 Peter Eisentraut < peter.eisentr...@2ndquadrant.com>: >>> I just noticed that createlang and droplang have been listed as >>> deprecated since PG 9.1. >>> Do we dare remove them? > (I'd extend it to all the non-prefixed