Re: [HACKERS] Re: HISTORY for 6.5.2

> Lamar Owen <lamar.owen@wgcr.org> writes:
> > 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.).
> 
> I don't see a need to change the names of psql or ecpg, which just
> happen to be the things most commonly invoked by users.  I'd be in favor
> of prepending pg_ to all the "admin-type" commands like createuser.
> Especially the createXXX/destroyXXX/initXXX ones, which seem the most
> likely to cause naming conflicts.

I have been thinking, the destroy should be drop, in keeping with SQL. 
destroy was a QUEL'ism.


> While we are thinking about this, I wonder if it wouldn't be a good idea
> to separate out the executables that aren't really intended to be
> executed willy-nilly, and put them in a different directory.
> postmaster, postgres, and initdb have no business being in users' PATH
> at all, ever.  You could make a case that some of the other executables
> are admin tools not intended for ordinary mortals, as well, and should
> not live in a directory that might be put in users' PATH.

Seems like it could make it harder for newbies.

> Of course, the other way an admin can handle that issue is not to put
> /usr/local/pgsql/bin into PATH, but to make symlinks from a more popular
> directory (say, /usr/local/bin) for the programs that users are expected
> to execute.  I suppose such an admin could stick pg_ on the front of the
> symlinks anyway.  But then the program names don't match the
> documentation we supply, which would be confusing.


-- 
  Bruce Momjian                        |  http://www.op.net/~candle
  maillist@candle.pha.pa.us            |  (610) 853-3000
  +  If your life is a hard drive,     |  830 Blythe Avenue
  +  Christ can be your backup.        |  Drexel Hill, Pennsylvania 19026