Re: [HACKERS] Re: HISTORY for 6.5.2 - Mailing list pgsql-hackers

From Lamar Owen
Subject Re: [HACKERS] Re: HISTORY for 6.5.2
Date
Msg-id 99091816355500.00581@lowen.wgcr.org
Whole thread Raw
In response to Re: [HACKERS] Re: HISTORY for 6.5.2  (Theo Kramer <theo@flame.co.za>)
Responses Re: [HACKERS] Re: HISTORY for 6.5.2  (Tom Lane <tgl@sss.pgh.pa.us>)
List pgsql-hackers
On Fri, 17 Sep 1999, Theo Kramer wrote:
> Dont know if it's been raised before, but the postgres utilities are installed
> into /usr/bin from the rpm. Problem with this is the naming of some of the 
> utilities eg.createuser, destroyuser. These could be confused with the 
> 'standard' user utilities such as useradd, userdel etc. How about pre-pending 
> a 'pg' to all postgres utilities so that these become pgcreateuser, 
> pgdestroyuser etc.?

This is an interesting idea.

What is also interesting is that if you have a traditional postgresql
installation (/usr/local/pgsql), you can get even wierder results if /usr/bin
contains one createuser and /usr/local/pgsql/bin contains another.  Depending
upon your PATH, you could get unwanted results in a hurry.

So, it IS an interesting thought -- while it would initially create a good deal
of confusion, what is the consensus of the hackers on this issue??  Prepending
"pg_" to all postgresql commands seems to me to be a good idea (after all, we
already hav pg_dump, pg_dumpall, pg_upgrade, etc.).

Thoughts??

Lamar Owen
WGCR Internet Radio


pgsql-hackers by date:

Previous
From: Bruce Momjian
Date:
Subject: Re: [HACKERS] Why do we need pg_vlock?
Next
From: Tom Lane
Date:
Subject: setheapoverride() considered harmful