> Really? So naming them pg_initdb and pg_createdb would help to clarify their
> use?
Yes.
> Perhaps you missed: https://www.postgresql.org/docs/9.6/static/app-pg-ctl.html
I meant a man page that details the ENTIRE Postgres command line tools.
> Command line aliases and other stuff
I've been
On 10/31/16 9:50 AM, Christofer C. Bell wrote:
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,
On 10/31/2016 05:15 PM, Samuel Williams wrote:
> Daniel, your reply is awesome :) I love the historical context and it
> brings much clarity to the discussion!
>
> It's now understandable why the commands were named the way they were.
>
> I'm surprised that distros are making their own commands
Daniel, your reply is awesome :) I love the historical context and it
brings much clarity to the discussion!
It's now understandable why the commands were named the way they were.
I'm surprised that distros are making their own commands for
postgres.. isn't that a bit invasive?
On 1 November
Samuel Williams wrote:
> John - that's an interesting example. If it's that easy, why isn't
> that the approach given in tutorials and other documentation? What was
> the motivation for the createuser command?
initdb, createdb and createuser existed even before Postgres
adopted SQL, back
On 31 October 2016 at 15:50, Christofer C. Bell wrote:
>
> 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
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
> wrote:
>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>> On Sun, Oct 30, 2016 at 8:08 PM, Samuel Williams <
>> space.ship.travel...@gmail.com> wrote:
>>
>>>
On Sun, Oct 30, 2016 at 11:10 PM, Melvin Davidson
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
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
>
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
wrote:
> Mike, I agree with "the postgres way of doing things". I'm suggesting that
>
>> these commands
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
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
On 10/30/2016 03:42 PM, Samuel Williams wrote:
A given the number of new users I see showing up and the number of those using
a GUI like pgAdmin I am not seeing the priority.
Well, maybe the reason for this is that the command line tools are not
well thought out and people reach for
> A given the number of new users I see showing up and the number of those
> using a GUI like pgAdmin I am not seeing the priority.
Well, maybe the reason for this is that the command line tools are not
well thought out and people reach for alternatives.
> but you are pushing against something
On 10/30/2016 12:15 AM, Samuel Williams wrote:
Adrian, I like the idea of teaching the appropriate SQL to achieve the
same thing. It makes a lot of sense, it's a pity the majority of
documentation doesn't do this.
John, if you read my earlier email you'd see that I proposed including
On 10/30/2016 02:19 AM, Samuel Williams wrote:
John - that's an interesting example. If it's that easy, why isn't
that the approach given in tutorials and other documentation? What was
the motivation for the createuser command?
psql was less user friendly in the past?
Compare:
John - that's an interesting example. If it's that easy, why isn't
that the approach given in tutorials and other documentation? What was
the motivation for the createuser command?
On 30 October 2016 at 20:20, John R Pierce wrote:
> On 10/30/2016 12:15 AM, Samuel Williams
On 10/30/2016 12:15 AM, Samuel Williams wrote:
But, I think having "pg_createuser" or, preferrably, "pg createuser".
psql -c "create user "
--
john r pierce, recycling bits in santa cruz
--
Sent via pgsql-general mailing list (pgsql-general@postgresql.org)
To make changes to your
Adrian, I like the idea of teaching the appropriate SQL to achieve the
same thing. It makes a lot of sense, it's a pity the majority of
documentation doesn't do this.
John, if you read my earlier email you'd see that I proposed including
deprecation notices and aliasing the commands. I appreciate
On 30/10/16 11:25, John R Pierce wrote:
On 10/29/2016 3:02 PM, Samuel Williams wrote:
FYI,https://wiki.archlinux.org/index.php/PostgreSQL mentions initdb,
createuser, createdb and several others. I think my suggestion is
still relevant and something that would improve the system for new
users
On Sat, Oct 29, 2016 at 6:25 PM, John R Pierce wrote:
> On 10/29/2016 3:02 PM, Samuel Williams wrote:
>
>> FYI,https://wiki.archlinux.org/index.php/PostgreSQL mentions initdb,
>> createuser, createdb and several others. I think my suggestion is
>> still relevant and
On 10/29/2016 3:02 PM, Samuel Williams wrote:
FYI,https://wiki.archlinux.org/index.php/PostgreSQL mentions initdb,
createuser, createdb and several others. I think my suggestion is
still relevant and something that would improve the system for new
users
and it would break it for the existing
On 10/29/2016 03:02 PM, Samuel Williams wrote:
FYI, https://wiki.archlinux.org/index.php/PostgreSQL mentions initdb,
createuser, createdb and several others. I think my suggestion is
still relevant and something that would improve the system for new
users :)
Seems to me the solution would be
FYI, https://wiki.archlinux.org/index.php/PostgreSQL mentions initdb,
createuser, createdb and several others. I think my suggestion is
still relevant and something that would improve the system for new
users :)
--
Sent via pgsql-general mailing list (pgsql-general@postgresql.org)
To make
I think there is an opportunity here to make the experience for new
users better.
Firstly, I think having one or two top level commands, perhaps pga
[postgres admin], and pg [postgres client], with well documented
sub-commands. Ideally `man pg` would tell you all the client commands
and `man pga`
On 10/29/2016 03:31 AM, Samuel Williams wrote:
(For some reason the first time I sent this message it was blocked due
to the keyword "sub-". So, I've changed that and am re-sending.)
I think there is an opportunity here to make the experience for new
users better.
Firstly, I think having one
(For some reason the first time I sent this message it was blocked due
to the keyword "sub-". So, I've changed that and am re-sending.)
I think there is an opportunity here to make the experience for new
users better.
Firstly, I think having one or two top level commands, perhaps pga
[postgres
On 10/28/2016 4:55 PM, Samuel Williams wrote:
Even if maintaining the old commands, they could print
out to stderr "This command is deprecated and now wraps `pg_ctl init`.
Please use that command in the future".
except its the other way around. pg_ctl initdb invokes initdb, not the
other
On 10/28/2016 04:55 PM, Samuel Williams wrote:
as these commands have been around for like 20 years, its kinda late to change
them
I understand your position.
For new documentation, it should be better to say `pg_ctl init` rather
than `initdb`. I think that would guide users in the right
> as these commands have been around for like 20 years, its kinda late to
> change them
I understand your position.
For new documentation, it should be better to say `pg_ctl init` rather
than `initdb`. I think that would guide users in the right direction
from the start. Even if maintaining the
On 10/28/2016 04:31 PM, Samuel Williams wrote:
Hello,
Perhaps I'm missing something.
However, it seems to me that there are several "generically" named
commands, e.g. initdb, createuesr which come as part of postgresql. In
my mind, these commands are sufficiently generic that they might clash
On 10/28/2016 4:31 PM, Samuel Williams wrote:
Just wondering as 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_) for these commands.
as these commands have been around for like 20
Hello,
Perhaps I'm missing something.
However, it seems to me that there are several "generically" named
commands, e.g. initdb, createuesr which come as part of postgresql. In
my mind, these commands are sufficiently generic that they might clash
with other commands. It's also not obvious they
33 matches
Mail list logo