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
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 th
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:
> >
"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 t
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 b
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
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 b
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 "cre
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 u
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?
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
Enterp
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)---
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
> > fol
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
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
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
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 po
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 alre
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
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
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
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.
"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
--
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
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 a
25 matches
Mail list logo
