On 2016-08-26 13:26:39 -0300, Euler Taveira wrote: > I'm bringing this $subject into discussion again. Historically, we are > carrying binary names that have been confused newbies. createuser is the > worst name so for. Also, names like createdb, initdb, reindexdb, and > droplang does not suggest what product it is referring to. Adding a > prefix (pg_, pg, ...) would 'make things clear'. If we have a consensus > about this change, I suggest renaming the following binaries: > > clusterdb > createdb > createlang > createuser > dropdb > droplang > dropuser > initdb > oid2name > reindexdb > vacuumdb > vacuumlo
Uhm, that'd need a careful backward compatibility plan, including a period of supporting both names. > Another major change related to this topic is assemble functionalities > from binaries. We currently have 34 binaries > (is that a lot for a single software?). Does it matter? The few bytes of disk space are essentially irrelevant. That said, on the code level, there'd be considerable benefit of coalescing: > pg_command: clusterdb, createdb, dropdb, createuser, dropuser, > createlang, droplang, reindexdb, vacuumdb, vacuumlo. these commands. We could do the old trick of leaving the old names as in place as symlinks. > initdb: we already have 'pg_ctl init' (since 9.0) and could remove > initdb. I fairly strongly against removing initdb as a separate binary. Issuies during cluster creation are already annoying to debug. This is a *significant* amount of work, it'll make backpatching a nightmare (although not that much happens in these binaries). I personally see better uses of my time. Andres -- Sent via pgsql-hackers mailing list (pgsql-hackers@postgresql.org) To make changes to your subscription: http://www.postgresql.org/mailpref/pgsql-hackers
