On 11/19/25 12:52 PM, Christoph Berg wrote:
> Re: Álvaro Herrera
>> I didn't immediately love this idea, but I'm not totally opposed to it
>> either, and perhaps it makes things better rather than adding yet
>> another very narrowly-focused tool. Also, pg_ctl already kinda has a
>> somewhat similar facet with its "pg_ctl init" mode.
>
> I would keep the server and client bits separate, though, so not merge
> these into pg_ctl.
>
> I don't have an idea for the ideal name, perhaps only that it should
> be short, and distinct from pg_ctl so people don't get confused. (So
> not pg_cmd or pg_cli.)
>
> Perhaps pg_util? ("pg" is taken by that classic pager thingy.)
I like the name pg_util. In the MySQL world it is called mysqladmin,
which is a does of pg_ctl and tools like createdb.
https://dev.mysql.com/doc/refman/9.5/en/mysqladmin.html
Maybe pg_util should only be for tools which connect to PostgreSQL over
the TCP (or a unix socket) while the all other tools, which need access
to the data directory, should have their own executables? Because in my
opinion we really have two kinds of frontend tools: those which need to
run on the same machine and with the same user as PostgreSQL and those
which connect to PostgreSQL, possibly from another machine, and run some
commands.
--
Andreas
Percona https://www.percona.com/
