From: | Zdenek Kotala <Zdenek(dot)Kotala(at)Sun(dot)COM> |
---|---|
To: | Alvaro Herrera <alvherre(at)commandprompt(dot)com> |
Cc: | Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us>, "Leif B(dot) Kristensen" <leif(at)solumslekt(dot)org>, pgsql-general(at)postgresql(dot)org |
Subject: | Re: Survey: renaming/removing script binaries (createdb, createuser...) |
Date: | 2008-03-26 20:41:14 |
Message-ID: | 47EAB4EA.5040608@sun.com |
Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
Thread: | |
Lists: | pgsql-general |
Alvaro Herrera napsal(a):
> Tom Lane wrote:
>> "Leif B. Kristensen" <leif(at)solumslekt(dot)org> writes:
>>> On Wednesday 26. March 2008, Ron Mayer wrote:
>>>> I'd prefer a "pg" program that took as arguments
>>>> the command. So you'd have "pg createdb" instead
>>>> of "pg_createdb".
>>> I'll second that. It would be much easier on the brain, as you might
>>> issue a "pg --help" if you don't remember the exact syntax or even the
>>> name of each command.
>> I like this too. It'd be considerably more work than the currently
>> proposed patch, though, since we'd have to meld the currently
>> separate programs into one executable.
>
> I note that we can continue to have the current executables stashed in
> PREFIX/share/libexec and let the "pg" executable exec them.
>
>> If we are OK with restricting the scope of the "pg" program to
>> client-side functionality, then there's no problem.
>
> Perhaps we can put the server-side functionality on pg_ctl.
>
+1
Yes, pg(.*) for client side and pg_ctl for server side.
Zdenek
From | Date | Subject | |
---|---|---|---|
Next Message | Paolo Saudin | 2008-03-26 20:50:45 | R: Survey: renaming/removing script binaries (createdb, createuser...) |
Previous Message | Zdenek Kotala | 2008-03-26 20:39:54 | Re: Survey: renaming/removing script binaries (createdb, createuser...) |