Thread: [HACKERS] createlang/droplang deprecated

I just noticed that createlang and droplang have been listed as
deprecated since PG 9.1.

Do we dare remove them?

-- 
Peter Eisentraut              http://www.2ndQuadrant.com/
PostgreSQL Development, 24x7 Support, Remote DBA, Training & Services

Magnus Hagander <magnus@hagander.net> writes:
>> 2017-03-18 14:00 GMT+01:00 Peter Eisentraut <peter.eisentraut@2ndquadrant.com>:
>>> I just noticed that createlang and droplang have been listed as
>>> deprecated since PG 9.1.
>>> Do we dare remove them?

> (I'd extend it to all the non-prefixed pg binaries, but let's open that can
> of worms right now, one thing at a time)

To my mind, these two and createuser/dropuser are the only really serious
namespacing problems among our standard binaries.  The ones with names
ending in "db" don't seem likely to cause huge confusion.  I suppose that
if we were naming it today, "psql" wouldn't get that name; but the chances
of renaming that one are certainly zero, namespace conflict or no.

But createuser/dropuser are a real problem, because they certainly could
be mistaken for system-level utilities.
        regards, tom lane

On Sat, Mar 18, 2017 at 11:29 AM, Tom Lane <tgl@sss.pgh.pa.us> wrote:
> Magnus Hagander <magnus@hagander.net> writes:
>>> 2017-03-18 14:00 GMT+01:00 Peter Eisentraut <peter.eisentraut@2ndquadrant.com>:
>>>> I just noticed that createlang and droplang have been listed as
>>>> deprecated since PG 9.1.
>>>> Do we dare remove them?
>
>> (I'd extend it to all the non-prefixed pg binaries, but let's open that can
>> of worms right now, one thing at a time)
>
> To my mind, these two and createuser/dropuser are the only really serious
> namespacing problems among our standard binaries.  The ones with names
> ending in "db" don't seem likely to cause huge confusion.  I suppose that
> if we were naming it today, "psql" wouldn't get that name; but the chances
> of renaming that one are certainly zero, namespace conflict or no.
>
> But createuser/dropuser are a real problem, because they certainly could
> be mistaken for system-level utilities.

Well, let's do one thing at a time.  I think it'd be fine to drop
createlang and droplang; we can discuss other things on other threads.

-- 
Robert Haas
EnterpriseDB: http://www.enterprisedb.com
The Enterprise PostgreSQL Company

On 3/18/17 9:00 AM, Peter Eisentraut wrote:
> I just noticed that createlang and droplang have been listed as
> deprecated since PG 9.1.
>
> Do we dare remove them?

+1

-- 
-David
david@pgmasters.net

On 3/18/17 09:00, Peter Eisentraut wrote:
> I just noticed that createlang and droplang have been listed as
> deprecated since PG 9.1.
> 
> Do we dare remove them?

Patch

-- 
Peter Eisentraut              http://www.2ndQuadrant.com/
PostgreSQL Development, 24x7 Support, Remote DBA, Training & Services

-- 
Sent via pgsql-hackers mailing list (pgsql-hackers@postgresql.org)
To make changes to your subscription:
http://www.postgresql.org/mailpref/pgsql-hackers

> On 20 Mar 2017, at 01:37, Peter Eisentraut <peter.eisentraut@2ndquadrant.com> wrote:
>
> On 3/18/17 09:00, Peter Eisentraut wrote:
>> I just noticed that createlang and droplang have been listed as
>> deprecated since PG 9.1.
>>
>> Do we dare remove them?
>
> Patch

LGTM, +1

cheers ./daniel

On 3/23/17 06:41, Daniel Gustafsson wrote:
>> On 20 Mar 2017, at 01:37, Peter Eisentraut <peter.eisentraut@2ndquadrant.com> wrote:
>>
>> On 3/18/17 09:00, Peter Eisentraut wrote:
>>> I just noticed that createlang and droplang have been listed as
>>> deprecated since PG 9.1.
>>>
>>> Do we dare remove them?
>>
>> Patch
> 
> LGTM, +1

Committed.

-- 
Peter Eisentraut              http://www.2ndQuadrant.com/
PostgreSQL Development, 24x7 Support, Remote DBA, Training & Services