Re: pg_encoding not needed anymore
scott.marlowe <scott.marlowe@ihs.com>
From: "scott.marlowe" <scott.marlowe@ihs.com>
To: Bruce Momjian <pgman@candle.pha.pa.us>
Cc: Andrew Dunstan <andrew@dunslane.net>, PostgreSQL-development <pgsql-hackers@postgresql.org>
Date: 2004-04-20T17:37:58Z
Lists: pgsql-hackers
On Tue, 20 Apr 2004, Bruce Momjian wrote: > Andrew Dunstan wrote: > > >past. I think createuser is much worse. :-) > > > > > > > > > > > Agreed. Actually, the big problem with the name "initdb" is that the > > name is misleading, and newbies often get confused by it. You are > > preparing a data store for many databases, not a single database. But I > > think it is far too sanctified by history to change now, just as Ken > > Thompson now wishes he had put an 'e' on the end of 'creat' but can't go > > back and fix it. Maybe we should think about a symlink/hardlink to use a > > better name. > > Yea, initcluster would have been better, but cluster confuses with > CLUSTER, just like database schema confuses with CREATE SCHEMA. Maybe initpg or pg_init or something like that?