Tom Lane wrote: > "Leif B. Kristensen" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes: > > On Wednesday 26. March 2008, Ron Mayer wrote: > >> I'd prefer a "pg" program that took as arguments > >> the command. So you'd have "pg createdb" instead > >> of "pg_createdb". > > > I'll second that. It would be much easier on the brain, as you might > > issue a "pg --help" if you don't remember the exact syntax or even the > > name of each command. > > I like this too. It'd be considerably more work than the currently > proposed patch, though, since we'd have to meld the currently > separate programs into one executable.
I note that we can continue to have the current executables stashed in PREFIX/share/libexec and let the "pg" executable exec them. > If we are OK with restricting the scope of the "pg" program to > client-side functionality, then there's no problem. Perhaps we can put the server-side functionality on pg_ctl. -- Alvaro Herrera http://www.CommandPrompt.com/ The PostgreSQL Company - Command Prompt, Inc. -- Sent via pgsql-general mailing list (pgsql-general@postgresql.org) To make changes to your subscription: http://www.postgresql.org/mailpref/pgsql-general
