> 1) What type of names do you prefer?
> -------------------------------
> a) old notation - createdb, createuser ...
> b) new one with pg_ prefix - pg_createdb, pg_creteuser ...
> c) new one with pg prefix - pgcreatedb, pgcreateuser ...
> d) remove them - psql is the solution
> e) remove them - pgadmin is the solution
a)
> 2) How often do you use these tools?
> -----------------------------------
> a) every day (e.g. in my cron)
> b) one per week
> c) one time
> d) never
b)
> 3) What name of initdb do you prefer?
> ---------- --------------------------
> a) initdb
> b) pg_initdb
> c) pg_init
> d) pg_ctl -d <dir> init (replace initdb with pg_ctl new functionality)
> e) What is initdb? My start/stop script does it automatically.
a)
> 4) How do you perform VACUUM?
> -----------------------------
> a) vacuumdb - shell command
> b) VACUUM - SQL command
> c) autovacuum
> d) What is vacuum?
b)
We're not seriously thinking of changing these are we? Once a command
set has been in use for as long a time as the PG command set has, any
benefit that may be derived by new users with an aversion to
documentation reading is vastly offset by the confusion that would
result among long time users whos scripts, tools and mental mental
processes all have the old names hardcoded in.
I can't imagine how there would be a nomenclature clash, if there is,
then just take one of the tools out of the path, use symlinks or put
calling scripts in the path instead. These are suboptimal solutions,
granted, but *any* naming scheme we change to will be subject to the
possibility of naming clashes with another package with a similar name,
unless we make the binaries have long, verbose names. I don't know about
you, but I don't fancy having to type "postgresqlclient dbname" to start
a DB. I like "psql dbname".
So I ask again, we're not seriously thinking about this are we?
Regards,
- Naz.
