Alvaro Herrera napsal(a):
> Tom Lane wrote:
>> "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.
>
> I note that we can continue to have the current executables stashed in
> PREFIX/share/libexec and let the "pg" executable exec them.
>
>> If we are OK with restricting the scope of the "pg" program to
>> client-side functionality, then there's no problem.
>
> Perhaps we can put the server-side functionality on pg_ctl.
>
+1
Yes, pg(.*) for client side and pg_ctl for server side.
Zdenek
