Tom Lane napsal(a):
> "Leif B. Kristensen" <leif@solumslekt.org> writes:
>> On Wednesday 26. March 2008, Ron Mayer wrote:
>>> I'd prefer a "pg" program that took as arguments
>>> the command. So you'd have "pg createdb" instead
>>> of "pg_createdb".
>
>> I'll second that. It would be much easier on the brain, as you might
>> issue a "pg --help" if you don't remember the exact syntax or even the
>> name of each command.
>
> I like this too. It'd be considerably more work than the currently
> proposed patch, though, since we'd have to meld the currently
> separate programs into one executable.
>
> One fairly serious objection is that doing so would eliminate the
> current distinction between client-side and server-side applications,
> at least if we wanted to fold both sets into one "pg" executable.
> So a client-only install would be carrying some baggage in the form
> of code that's useless if the server isn't local.
>
> If we are OK with restricting the scope of the "pg" program to
> client-side functionality, then there's no problem.
I think we can use pg (or pg_cmd) for client side and integrate initdb and other
tools into pg_ctl, as a "pg_ctl init" and so on.
Zdenek
