On 22.06.26 09:46, Kyotaro Horiguchi wrote:
> At Mon, 22 Jun 2026 06:56:45 +0000, "Hayato Kuroda (Fujitsu)" <kuroda.hayato@fujitsu.com> wrote in
>> Dear Peter,
>>
>>> Note that the latter includes pg_basebackup, pg_receivewal, and
>>> pg_recvlogical, which feel generally similar to pg_createsubscriber.
>>
>> Hmm, but similar command pg_upgrade was included in the server app page.
>>
>> The page [1] defined that server commands are the command can be run on the same
>> server with the postgres server process. IIRC, the command was categorized as
>> "Server Application" because it assumed standby is running on the same machine.
>>
>> But... I think the command is located on the border between the server and the client.
>> We should hear other opinions too.
>>
>> [1]: https://www.postgresql.org/docs/devel/reference-server.html
>
> I also agree that pg_createsubscriber sits somewhere on the boundary
> between server and client applications. If we were to draw a
> distinction, one possible interpretation would be that server
> applications are tools that access server resources beyond what a
> regular client connection normally does. That seems broadly consistent
> with the current classification, although pg_basebackup still feels
> somewhat borderline under that interpretation.
I agree it is borderline (otherwise this discussion would probably be
unnecessary ;-) ), but I also think it should be one the same side of
the grouping as the likes of pg_basebackup.
> I also wonder whether the server/client distinction is particularly
> important here. A number of utilities seem to fall somewhere between
> the two categories, and I'm not sure users pay much attention to that
> classification when looking up commands.
Maybe we don't need to have this distinction at all, but as long as we
have it, it would be good to maintain it. Also, as I mentioned in the
previous message, this is indirectly related to packaging. What "bin"
programs would you expect in a postgresql-server and a postgresql-client
package?
