On 6 May 2010 20:55, Bruce Momjian <br...@momjian.us> wrote: > Bruce Momjian wrote: > > Tom Lane wrote: > > > "Joshua D. Drake" <j...@commandprompt.com> writes: > > > > On Wed, 2010-05-05 at 20:24 -0400, Robert Haas wrote: > > > >> I think it will be confusing if we change the name, so I vote to not > > > >> change the name. > > > > > > > Actually, I would vote yes to change the name. > > > > > > I lean that way too. If there were no history involved, we'd certainly > > > prefer pg_upgrade to pg_migrator. > > > > Yeah, that was my feeling too. People like "pg_upgrade", or something > > else? I will add some text like "pg_upgrade (formerly pg_migrator)" in > > the docs. > > OK, seems people like pg_upgrade, but do we call it "pgupgrade" or > "pg_upgrade"? I don't see consistent naming in /contrib: > > pg_buffercache/ > pg_freespacemap/ > pg_standby/ > pg_stat_statements/ > pg_trgm/ > pgbench/ > pgcrypto/ > pgrowlocks/ > pgstattuple/ > > The original 7.2 name was "pg_upgrade": > > > http://anoncvs.postgresql.org/cvsweb.cgi/pgsql/contrib/pg_upgrade/Attic/ > > -- > > You will call it pg_upgrade. I have spoken.
Thom
