Tomas Vondra <tomas.von...@2ndquadrant.com> writes:
> On 3/21/19 1:49 AM, Michael Paquier wrote:
>> On Thu, Mar 21, 2019 at 08:41:32AM +0900, Tatsuo Ishii wrote:
>>> Can someone describe a scenario where this (name of the binary not
>>> clearly indicating it's related postgres) causes issues in practice?
>> Naming conflict because our binary names are too generic?
> Maybe. Do we actually know about such cases?
More to the point, we have now got twenty+ years seniority on any other
package that might want those /usr/bin names. So a conflict is not
*really* going to happen, or at least it's not going to be our problem
if it does.
The whole thing is unfortunate, without a doubt, but it's still
unclear that renaming those programs will buy anything that's worth
the conversion costs. I'd be happy to pay said costs if it were all
falling to this project to do so ... but most of the pain will be
borne by other people.
regards, tom lane
