Naz Gassiep napsal(a):
>
> 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.
Yes, I understand your point of view, but on other side there are arguments in
discussion, that for newbies old name are terrible to use and frankly, who reads
manual before he start to use a product?
> 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".
Nobody want to rename psql. Personaly, I dislike current command names for long
long time. Many times I tried create unix user by createuser command. And these
names could be potential names of system commands.
> So I ask again, we're not seriously thinking about this are we?
Yes, we are. And this is a reason why I prepare this survey, because we could
not reach a decision on the -hackers. However, it seems that we choose third
variant with new wrapper command pgc.
Zdenek
