On Wed, 26 Mar 2008, Steve Atkins wrote:
These were mostly rhetorical suggestions. Not serious in themselves, but hoping to make people come clean about why name changes of binaries might be needed.
So far I haven't seen anyone besides Zdenek gives a reason why this is worth the trouble, and that reason has been "Sun's engineers don't like it". Now, that alone would be enough to make it a #1 priority if, say, Sun had just given the PostgreSQL community a billion dollars or something...
I know I'd be curious to hear what the actual namespace clash concerns are here, because all this talk worrying about things like "vacuumdb" seems a bit silly to me--I'm not feeling that one as a likely problem one day. The create* set are the only examples that seem obviously misleading and problematic to me. I've had my own brain fog moments where I typed createuser when I meant useradd, and vice-versa.
Oh, and everybody should give up on "pg" as a candidate for the universal command, those letters have been claimed in UNIX land many years ago. You might as well want "ls". "pgsql" or "pgcmd" might work; "pgc" is the shortest thing I can think of that would both make sense (as a short "pg command") and that isn't used anywhere.
And if anybody suggests putting a "_" in something I have to type all the time, I will stick my fingers in my ears and start yelling until they stop. Bad enough I have to type pg_ctl a few times every day now.
-- * Greg Smith gsmith@xxxxxxxxxxxxx http://www.gregsmith.com Baltimore, MD -- Sent via pgsql-general mailing list (pgsql-general@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx) To make changes to your subscription: http://www.postgresql.org/mailpref/pgsql-general
