| From: | Robert Haas <robertmhaas(at)gmail(dot)com> |
|---|---|
| To: | Magnus Hagander <magnus(at)hagander(dot)net> |
| Cc: | Mark Dilger <mark(dot)dilger(at)enterprisedb(dot)com>, pgsql-hackers <pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org> |
| Subject: | Re: New 'pg' consolidated metacommand patch |
| Date: | 2020-05-27 15:56:59 |
| Message-ID: | CA+TgmobD6_57Me2ZHVbV1ouLLM03mB+1m8CBj-4eDMRZ27pEjA@mail.gmail.com |
| Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
| Thread: | |
| Lists: | pgsql-hackers |
On Wed, May 27, 2020 at 4:51 AM Magnus Hagander <magnus(at)hagander(dot)net> wrote:
> As mentioned at least once before, the "pg" name is already taken in posix. Granted it has been removed now, but it was removed from posix in 2018, which I think is nowhere near soon enough to "steal. See for example https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pg_(Unix)
The previous discussion of this general topic starts at
http://postgr.es/m/CA+TgmoZQmDY7nLrQ96nLm-wrnmNPY90qdMvZ6LtJO941GwgLMg@mail.gmail.com
and the discussion of this particular issue starts at
https://www.postgresql.org/message-id/15135.1586703479%40sss.pgh.pa.us
I think I agree with what Andres said on that thread: rather than
waiting a long time to see what happens, we should grab the name
before somebody else does. As also discussed on that thread, perhaps
we should have the official name of the binary be 'pgsql' with 'pg' as
a symlink that some packagers might choose to omit.
--
Robert Haas
EnterpriseDB: http://www.enterprisedb.com
The Enterprise PostgreSQL Company
| From | Date | Subject | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Next Message | Alvaro Herrera | 2020-05-27 15:59:59 | Re: BufFileRead() error signalling |
| Previous Message | Christoph Moench-Tegeder | 2020-05-27 15:32:45 | Re: New 'pg' consolidated metacommand patch |