| From: | The Hermit Hacker <scrappy(at)hub(dot)org> |
|---|---|
| To: | Peter Eisentraut <peter_e(at)gmx(dot)net> |
| Cc: | Philip Warner <pjw(at)rhyme(dot)com(dot)au>, pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org |
| Subject: | Re: pg_backup symlink? |
| Date: | 2000-07-10 22:52:58 |
| Message-ID: | Pine.BSF.4.21.0007101952260.3314-100000@thelab.hub.org |
| Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
| Thread: | |
| Lists: | pgsql-general pgsql-hackers |
On Tue, 11 Jul 2000, Peter Eisentraut wrote:
> Philip Warner writes:
>
> > Does anyone have a philosophical objection to a symlink from pg_dump to
> > (new) pg_backup?
>
> Yes. The behaviour of a program should not depend on the name used to
> invoke it. You can use shell aliases or scripts for that.
tell that to *how many* Unix programs? :) sendmail, of course, being the
first to jump to mind ...
| From | Date | Subject | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Next Message | Tom Lane | 2000-07-10 22:54:32 | Re: Slashdot discussion |
| Previous Message | KMiller | 2000-07-10 22:44:35 | ERROR: plpgsql: cache lookup from pg_proc failed |
| From | Date | Subject | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Next Message | Tom Lane | 2000-07-10 22:54:32 | Re: Slashdot discussion |
| Previous Message | Tom Lane | 2000-07-10 22:47:42 | Re: Templates |