Re: [HACKERS] Re: HISTORY for 6.5.2

From: Lamar Owen <lamar(dot)owen(at)wgcr(dot)org>
To: Theo Kramer <theo(at)flame(dot)co(dot)za>, "pgsql-hackers(at)postgreSQL(dot)org" <pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org>
Subject: Re: [HACKERS] Re: HISTORY for 6.5.2
Date: 1999-09-18 20:27:08
Message-ID: 99091816355500.00581@lowen.wgcr.org
Views: Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email
Thread:
Lists: pgsql-hackers

On Fri, 17 Sep 1999, Theo Kramer wrote:
> Dont know if it's been raised before, but the postgres utilities are installed
> into /usr/bin from the rpm. Problem with this is the naming of some of the
> utilities eg.createuser, destroyuser. These could be confused with the
> 'standard' user utilities such as useradd, userdel etc. How about pre-pending
> a 'pg' to all postgres utilities so that these become pgcreateuser,
> pgdestroyuser etc.?

This is an interesting idea.

What is also interesting is that if you have a traditional postgresql
installation (/usr/local/pgsql), you can get even wierder results if /usr/bin
contains one createuser and /usr/local/pgsql/bin contains another. Depending
upon your PATH, you could get unwanted results in a hurry.

So, it IS an interesting thought -- while it would initially create a good deal
of confusion, what is the consensus of the hackers on this issue?? Prepending
"pg_" to all postgresql commands seems to me to be a good idea (after all, we
already hav pg_dump, pg_dumpall, pg_upgrade, etc.).

Thoughts??

Lamar Owen
WGCR Internet Radio

In response to

Browse pgsql-hackers by date

  From Date Subject
Next Message Tom Lane 1999-09-18 20:45:37 setheapoverride() considered harmful
Previous Message Bruce Momjian 1999-09-18 20:25:40 Re: [HACKERS] Why do we need pg_vlock?