I think that would be amazing! It would be great!
On Fri, Mar 29, 2019 at 4:01 AM Tatsuo Ishii <ishii(at)sraoss(dot)co(dot)jp> wrote:
>
> > Andreas Karlsson <andreas(at)proxel(dot)se> writes:
> >> On 3/27/19 3:26 PM, Tomas Vondra wrote:
> >>> That is true, of course. But are there actual examples of such conflicts
> >>> in practice? I mean, are there tools/packages that provide commands with
> >>> a conflicting name? I'm not aware of any, and as was pointed before, we'd
> >>> have ~20 years of history on any new ones.
> >
> >> That is a fair argument. Since we squatted those names back in the
> >> mid-90s I think the risk of collision is low.
> >
> > Right. I think there is a fair argument to be made for user confusion
> > (not actual conflict) with respect to createuser and dropuser. The
> > argument for renaming any of the other tools is much weaker, IMO.
>
> If we were to invent new command names, what about doing similar to
> git? I mean something like:
>
> pgsql createdb ....
>
> Here, "pgsql" is new command name and "createdb" is a sub command name
> to create a database.
>
> This way, we would be free from the command name conflict problem and
> plus, we could do:
>
> pgsql --help
>
> which will prints subscommand names when a user is not sure what is
> the sub command name.
>
> Best regards,
> --
> Tatsuo Ishii
> SRA OSS, Inc. Japan
> English: http://www.sraoss.co.jp/index_en.php
> Japanese:http://www.sraoss.co.jp