On Mon, Oct 31, 2016 at 10:50 AM, Christofer C. Bell < christofer.c.b...@gmail.com> wrote:
> On Sun, Oct 30, 2016 at 11:10 PM, Melvin Davidson <melvin6...@gmail.com> > wrote: > >> >> >> >> >> On Sun, Oct 30, 2016 at 8:08 PM, Samuel Williams < >> space.ship.travel...@gmail.com> wrote: >> >>> Sorry, just to clarify, b "worst" I don't mean functionality, I mean >>> the way the commands are named and organised. >>> >>> On 31 October 2016 at 13:07, Samuel Williams >>> <space.ship.travel...@gmail.com> wrote: >>> > Mike, I agree with "the postgres way of doing things". I'm suggesting >>> that >>> > >>> >> these commands are sufficiently generic that they might clash >>> > with other commands. >>> > >>> >> It's also not obvious they are part of postgresql. >>> > >>> >> Wouldn't it make more sense to make them subcommand, of, say, a top >>> > level pga (postgres admin) command, a bit like how `mysqladmin` works >>> > >>> > and finally >>> > >>> >> the naming of these commands seems overly generic >>> > and for a new user it's hard to know what commands are available since >>> > there is no common prefix (e.g. pg_<tab>) for these commands >>> > >>> > Just because things are working how they currently are doesn't mean >>> > they can't be improved. >>> > >>> >> If someone isn’t skilled in sql, the requests you’ve made won’t >>> assist them at all. >>> > >>> > This isn't just about someone who is or isn't skilled. I work with >>> > MySQL, CouchDB, Redis, and various other technologies. Out of those >>> > three, I'd say that Postgres has the worst and most inconsistently >>> > named command line tools. It's a large overhead for day to day >>> > operation to deal with inconsistency at any level. >>> > >>> > It's not a particularly hard problem to fix and thus I think it's >>> > worthy of some attention. >>> > >>> > On 31 October 2016 at 12:51, Mike Sofen <mso...@runbox.com> wrote: >>> >> From: Samuel Williams Sent: Sunday, October 30, 2016 3:42 PM >>> >> As a community I'd think that having feedback from a new user would be >>> >> valuable since as you say, sometimes when you get ingrained into the >>> "way of >>> >> doing things" that you don't see how they could be improved or >>> different. >>> >> >>> >> Samuel >>> >> >>> >> ------------------------ >>> >> >>> >> I’d take a different tack. I spent 20 years with SQL Server and >>> easily >>> >> (almost gleefully) hopped over to Postgres and especially pgplsql and >>> >> PgAdmin III, from using SqlServer Management Studio (SSMS – their >>> >> admin/coding app). >>> >> >>> >> >>> >> >>> >> Sure, I had to learn the PG way of doing things, but really, it was a >>> >> no-brainer. I had to spend a few extra cycles learning the PG best >>> >> practices and particular way of doing things but it was >>> trivial…google and >>> >> done. The vast community has created massive amounts of examples for >>> nearly >>> >> everything imaginable – and some things I would never have imagined >>> anyone >>> >> would try to do – such that I don’t have to Lewis and Clark it but >>> just dive >>> >> right in and write code. >>> >> >>> >> >>> >> >>> >> IMO, nothing major needs changing in the language or command syntax – >>> it’s >>> >> logical and easy for anyone skilled in sql. If someone isn’t skilled >>> in >>> >> sql, the requests you’ve made won’t assist them at all. >>> >> >>> >> >>> >> >>> >> Mike Sofen (Synthetic Genomics) >>> >>> >>> -- >>> Sent via pgsql-general mailing list (pgsql-general@postgresql.org) >>> To make changes to your subscription: >>> http://www.postgresql.org/mailpref/pgsql-general >>> >> >> >> >> *Samuel,* >> >> *I believe you are over simplifying things. Simply renaming a command >> does not make it easier to learn or clarify it's use.* >> >> *That is the purpose of documentation. A beginner does not get a better >> understanding of command usage by the name of a command,* >> >> *they get it by actually using the command. In addition, I don't know any >> DBA that is in favor of longer command names (as you * >> >> *propose prefixing with pg_ ). The fact is, the commands are already self >> explanatory. The _only_ way to learn how to be a good DBA* >> >> *is to actually use the commands, and that also includes pg_ctl and psql >> commands. I agree that GUI tools make it easier to learn,* >> >> *but is essential to learn the command line tools and how to use. So >> again, it is not the name that is important, but the actual usage.* >> -- >> *Melvin Davidson* >> I reserve the right to fantasize. Whether or not you >> wish to share my fantasy is entirely up to you. >> > > > I think the OP's point is that having a hodgepodge of (on their face) > unrelated commands smells kinda unorganized at best and unprofessional at > worst. Wether or not he's right is up to the reader. For me, I agree with > his sentiment. > > The solution he's suggesting is to bring all of these commands under one > umbrella either by bundling them in an administrative utility or by giving > them a prefix that shows they're related to "the PostgreSQL database." > > He's getting a lot of pushback that really feels it's coming from the > wrong direction. "Just learn it." "It's always been this way." "No one > agrees with you." These arguments are unconvincing. That said, there's > nothing wrong with just saying, "we're not going to change it because we > don't want to." > > -- > Chris > > "If you wish to make an apple pie from scratch, you must first invent the > Universe." -- Carl Sagan > > > >The solution he's suggesting is to bring all of these commands under one umbrella either by bundling them in an administrative utility or by giving them a prefix that shows they're related to "the PostgreSQL database." *As I have already pointed out, they are already documented well:https://www.postgresql.org/docs/9.6/static/reference-client.html <https://www.postgresql.org/docs/9.6/static/reference-client.html>* >giving them a prefix that shows they're related to "the PostgreSQL database." *I would think that the fact they are bundled in /usr/lib/postgresql/<version>/bin/would be a big hint. Likewise in windows <C>:\<postgresql>\bin\.* >He's getting a lot of pushback that really feels it's coming from the wrong direction.... >That said, there's nothing wrong with just saying, "we're not going to change it because we don't want to." *No, what I am saying is "There is no need to change it". It's working, it's documented, it is an existing standard. * -- *Melvin Davidson* I reserve the right to fantasize. Whether or not you wish to share my fantasy is entirely up to you.