From: | Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us> |
---|---|
To: | Magnus Hagander <magnus(at)hagander(dot)net> |
Cc: | Pavel Stehule <pavel(dot)stehule(at)gmail(dot)com>, Peter Eisentraut <peter(dot)eisentraut(at)2ndquadrant(dot)com>, pgsql-hackers <pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org> |
Subject: | Re: createlang/droplang deprecated |
Date: | 2017-03-18 15:29:16 |
Message-ID: | 680.1489850956@sss.pgh.pa.us |
Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
Thread: | |
Lists: | pgsql-hackers |
Magnus Hagander <magnus(at)hagander(dot)net> writes:
>> 2017-03-18 14:00 GMT+01:00 Peter Eisentraut <peter(dot)eisentraut(at)2ndquadrant(dot)com>:
>>> I just noticed that createlang and droplang have been listed as
>>> deprecated since PG 9.1.
>>> Do we dare remove them?
> (I'd extend it to all the non-prefixed pg binaries, but let's open that can
> of worms right now, one thing at a time)
To my mind, these two and createuser/dropuser are the only really serious
namespacing problems among our standard binaries. The ones with names
ending in "db" don't seem likely to cause huge confusion. I suppose that
if we were naming it today, "psql" wouldn't get that name; but the chances
of renaming that one are certainly zero, namespace conflict or no.
But createuser/dropuser are a real problem, because they certainly could
be mistaken for system-level utilities.
regards, tom lane
From | Date | Subject | |
---|---|---|---|
Next Message | Tom Lane | 2017-03-18 16:50:40 | Re: New CORRESPONDING clause design |
Previous Message | Petr Jelinek | 2017-03-18 14:59:16 | Re: background sessions |