On Wed, 2019-03-27 at 15:07 +0100, Andreas Karlsson wrote:
> [EXTERNAL SOURCE]
>
>
>
> On 3/27/19 2:51 PM, Tomas Vondra wrote:
> > I think the consensus in this thread (and the previous ancient ones) is
> > that it's not worth it. It's one thing to introduce new commands with the
> > pg_ prefix, and it's a completely different thing to rename existing ones.
> > That has inherent costs, and as Tom pointed out the burden would fall on
> > people using PostgreSQL (and that's rather undesirable).
> >
> > I personally don't see why having commands without pg_ prefix would be
> > an issue. Especially when placed in a separate directory, which eliminates
> > the possibility of conflict with other commands.
>
> I buy that it may not be worth breaking tens of thousands of scripts to
> fix this, but I disagree about it not being an issue. Most Linux
> distributions add PostgreSQL's executables in to a directory which is in
> the default $PATH (/usr/bin in the case of Debian). And even if it would
> be installed into a separate directory there would still be a conflict
> as soon as that directory is added to $PATH.
>
> And I think that it is also relatively easy to confuse adduser and
> createuser when reading a script. Nothing about the name createuser
> indicates that it will create a role in an SQL database.
>
> Andreas
>
theres nothing about createuser or adduser( useradd on my system,
adduser doesn't exist on mine ) that indicates that either would/should
create a user in the system either. That's what man and -h/--help are
for. If you don't know what an executable does, don't invoke it until
you do. That's a basic premise for any executable.
reid
