Re: should pg_basebackup be listed as a server application?

Josh Kupershmidt <schmiddy(at)gmail(dot)com> writes:
> On Fri, May 6, 2011 at 2:30 PM, Alvaro Herrera
> <alvherre(at)commandprompt(dot)com> wrote:
>> Is there really a dichotomy here? Client/server? Maybe we just need
>> another category, "administrative applications" or something like that.

> You can draw a clear line between applications which can connect to a
> server remotely, and those which need to be executed on the actual
> server machine, and thus distinguish "Client" from "Server"
> Applications. If we use that logic, I think pg_config should be listed
> as a "Server Application" and pg_basebackup should remain a "Client
> Application", and we'd be consistent.

Well, pg_config still fails to fit neatly into either category, since
you might want it on the server to find out how the server is
configured, and you might want it on the client to find out how the
client is configured (which could very easily be different, especially
if you are inquiring about things like installation directories).

I also tend to agree with Alvaro that a lot of the stuff that falls on
the "client" side of the fence when using the strict "can it be executed
remotely" test is stuff that typically would *not* be wanted on a
client machine. A packager who had thought twice about it would
probably not put pg_basebackup, pg_dump*, vacuumdb, reindexdb, or
clusterdb into a "client" rather than a "server" package, for instance.
(Although I notice that I've drunk the koolaid to the extent of
slavishly following the current division in the Fedora packages :-()

I'm not entirely sure if the notion of an "administrative" app helps
much, but for sure I've never been satisfied with the equation of "can
in principle execute remotely" with "client". This is a good time to be
rethinking that.

regards, tom lane