Where are we on this? Tom thinks we don't want this. TODO has:

* Prefix command-line utilities like createuser with 'pg_'
http://archives.postgresql.org/pgsql...6/msg00025.php

See for reference:

http://momjian.us/mhonarc/patches/46...2@sun.com.html

One idea is to keep the existing commands and just add pg_* (or pg*) to
additional versions, with the idea that the original versions will be
removed some day.

---------------------------------------------------------------------------


Zdenek Kotala wrote:
> I attach complete patch which renames following binaries
>
> createdb createlang createuser dropdb droplang dropuser clusterdb
> vacuumdb reindexdb
>
> to
>
> pg_createdb pg_createlang pg_createuser pg_dropdb pg_droplang
> pg_dropuser pg_clusterdb pg_vacuumdb pg_reindexdb
>
> Symlinks (or copy on win32) are created for backward compatibility.
>
> This renaming was discussed there:
>
> http://archives.postgresql.org/pgsql...6/msg00145.php
>
> I create also separate unified patch for documentation.
>
> Zdenek

[ application/x-gzip is not supported, skipping... ]

>
> ---------------------------(end of broadcast)---------------------------
> TIP 7: You can help support the PostgreSQL project by donating at
>
> http://www.postgresql.org/about/donate

--
Bruce Momjian <bruce@momjian.us> 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

Bruce Momjian <bruce@momjian.us> writes:
> Where are we on this? Tom thinks we don't want this. TODO has:
> * Prefix command-line utilities like createuser with 'pg_'
> http://archives.postgresql.org/pgsql...6/msg00025.php

It wasn't just me; quite a few people were dubious about it when the
patch was submitted. See the thread here:
http://archives.postgresql.org/pgsql...7/msg00055.php

> One idea is to keep the existing commands and just add pg_* (or pg*) to
> additional versions, with the idea that the original versions will be
> removed some day.

AFAICS the only argument for doing this is to eliminate confusion and
potential conflicts, which means that we get no benefit at all until we
actually do remove the old names. So if we're going to do this, we have
to make a commitment that we're going to remove the old names within the
reasonably foreseeable future (say, about two releases out).

Are we really prepared to break everyone's scripts for this?

regards, tom lane

--
Sent via pgsql-hackers mailing list (pgsql-hackers@postgresql.org)
To make changes to your subscription:
http://www.postgresql.org/mailpref/pgsql-hackers

Tom Lane wrote:
> Bruce Momjian <bruce@momjian.us> writes:
> > Where are we on this? Tom thinks we don't want this. TODO has:
> > * Prefix command-line utilities like createuser with 'pg_'
> > http://archives.postgresql.org/pgsql...6/msg00025.php
>
> It wasn't just me; quite a few people were dubious about it when the
> patch was submitted. See the thread here:
> http://archives.postgresql.org/pgsql...7/msg00055.php

True.

> > One idea is to keep the existing commands and just add pg_* (or pg*) to
> > additional versions, with the idea that the original versions will be
> > removed some day.
>
> AFAICS the only argument for doing this is to eliminate confusion and
> potential conflicts, which means that we get no benefit at all until we
> actually do remove the old names. So if we're going to do this, we have
> to make a commitment that we're going to remove the old names within the
> reasonably foreseeable future (say, about two releases out).
>
> Are we really prepared to break everyone's scripts for this?

Uh, I think it is hard to make a case that 'createuser' is an
appropriate name for a Postgres utility. On the other hand, we haven't
had many complaints about it, which is kind of odd.

I feel people can always symlink in the old names if they still want
them after we remove the old names.

--
Bruce Momjian <bruce@momjian.us> 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

-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----
Hash: SHA1



- --On Tuesday, March 25, 2008 22:51:53 -0400 Bruce Momjian <bruce@momjian.us>
wrote:

> Uh, I think it is hard to make a case that 'createuser' is an
> appropriate name for a Postgres utility. On the other hand, we haven't
> had many complaints about it, which is kind of odd.

If nobody has ever complained, what is the reason for the change? How many ppl
are going to complain because the commands they are used to "suddenly stop
existing"?

- --
Marc G. Fournier Hub.Org Hosting Solutions S.A. (http://www.hub.org)
Email . scrappy@hub.org MSN . scrappy@hub.org
Yahoo . yscrappy Skype: hub.org ICQ . 7615664
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
Version: GnuPG v2.0.4 (FreeBSD)

iD8DBQFH6dPA4QvfyHIvDvMRAj2AAKDQ2r2L8ztHDeUhBBSD10 VwbttXugCgksd8
g8Tq27/AorIuM1Yo8nh1vbc=
=JnjX
-----END PGP SIGNATURE-----


--
Sent via pgsql-hackers mailing list (pgsql-hackers@postgresql.org)
To make changes to your subscription:
http://www.postgresql.org/mailpref/pgsql-hackers

Bruce Momjian napsal(a):
> Where are we on this? Tom thinks we don't want this. TODO has:

I plan to send survey on general list about it today.

Zdenek

--
Sent via pgsql-hackers mailing list (pgsql-hackers@postgresql.org)
To make changes to your subscription:
http://www.postgresql.org/mailpref/pgsql-hackers

Marc G. Fournier napsal(a):
> -----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----
> Hash: SHA1
>
>
>
> - --On Tuesday, March 25, 2008 22:51:53 -0400 Bruce Momjian <bruce@momjian.us>
> wrote:
>
>> Uh, I think it is hard to make a case that 'createuser' is an
>> appropriate name for a Postgres utility. On the other hand, we haven't
>> had many complaints about it, which is kind of odd.
>
> If nobody has ever complained, what is the reason for the change? How many ppl
> are going to complain because the commands they are used to "suddenly stop
> existing"?

Minimal me :-) and Solaris Architect committee have complain. Question is also
how many users really use these commands. For example vacuumdb is not too
important now when we have autovacuum. You can specify tablespace in createdb
command but you don't have createtablespace command and so on.

I will send survey to general list today and I hope we get some useful information.

Zdenek

--
Sent via pgsql-hackers mailing list (pgsql-hackers@postgresql.org)
To make changes to your subscription:
http://www.postgresql.org/mailpref/pgsql-hackers

On Tue, 2008-03-25 at 21:59 -0400, Tom Lane wrote:
> Bruce Momjian <bruce@momjian.us> writes:
> > Where are we on this? Tom thinks we don't want this. TODO has:
> > * Prefix command-line utilities like createuser with 'pg_'
> > http://archives.postgresql.org/pgsql...6/msg00025.php
>
> It wasn't just me; quite a few people were dubious about it when the
> patch was submitted. See the thread here:
> http://archives.postgresql.org/pgsql...7/msg00055.php
>
> > One idea is to keep the existing commands and just add pg_* (or pg*) to
> > additional versions, with the idea that the original versions will be
> > removed some day.
>
> AFAICS the only argument for doing this is to eliminate confusion and
> potential conflicts, which means that we get no benefit at all until we
> actually do remove the old names. So if we're going to do this, we have
> to make a commitment that we're going to remove the old names within the
> reasonably foreseeable future (say, about two releases out).
>
> Are we really prepared to break everyone's scripts for this?

I wonder how many people actually use those commands :-) I know I always
use psql with a commandline parameter, and the majority of other peoples
scripts that I've come across also do that. So I'm not sure exactly how
important it is.

Another option then might be to simply deprecate their use, and
eventually get rid of them, instead of renaming them?

//Magnus

--
Sent via pgsql-hackers mailing list (pgsql-hackers@postgresql.org)
To make changes to your subscription:
http://www.postgresql.org/mailpref/pgsql-hackers

Zdeněk Kotala wrote:
> Question is also how many users really use these commands. For example
> vacuumdb is not too important now when we have autovacuum.

This is not true. Plenty of apps will quite reasonably choose to follow
large batch updates by a single vacuumdb rather than using autovacuum.

Incidentally, I am less opposed than some to some sensible renaming
here, eventually. Perhaps we could take the opportunity to fix the
naming of initdb, which confuses the heck out of many people.

cheers

andrew



--
Sent via pgsql-hackers mailing list (pgsql-hackers@postgresql.org)
To make changes to your subscription:
http://www.postgresql.org/mailpref/pgsql-hackers

Andrew Dunstan napsal(a):
>
>
> Zdeněk Kotala wrote:
>> Question is also how many users really use these commands. For example
>> vacuumdb is not too important now when we have autovacuum.
>
> This is not true. Plenty of apps will quite reasonably choose to follow
> large batch updates by a single vacuumdb rather than using autovacuum.

Yes, up to 8.2, but I think situation for 8.3 could be different. We have more
works, autovacuum is better and so on.

> Incidentally, I am less opposed than some to some sensible renaming
> here, eventually. Perhaps we could take the opportunity to fix the
> naming of initdb, which confuses the heck out of many people.

Instead of renaming initdb extend pg_ctl (pg_ctl init) seems to me as a better idea.

Zdenek


--
Sent via pgsql-hackers mailing list (pgsql-hackers@postgresql.org)
To make changes to your subscription:
http://www.postgresql.org/mailpref/pgsql-hackers

Zdeněk Kotala wrote:
> Andrew Dunstan napsal(a):
>>
>>
>> Zdeněk Kotala wrote:
>>> Question is also how many users really use these commands. For
>>> example vacuumdb is not too important now when we have autovacuum.
>>
>> This is not true. Plenty of apps will quite reasonably choose to
>> follow large batch updates by a single vacuumdb rather than using
>> autovacuum.
>
> Yes, up to 8.2, but I think situation for 8.3 could be different. We
> have more works, autovacuum is better and so on.
>
>

Again, this is just not true. It might not be a situation you run
across, but autovacuum does not suit all needs. This includes 8.3.

cheers

andrew

--
Sent via pgsql-hackers mailing list (pgsql-hackers@postgresql.org)
To make changes to your subscription:
http://www.postgresql.org/mailpref/pgsql-hackers