eptember 28, 2000 12:28 PM
Subject: Re: [GENERAL] Command names
>
>
> It would probably be easy to create a link, or a script called pg_XXX that
> executes the command XXX. I'd rather have createdb instead of pg_createdb
> just because it's easier to type. A script th
It would probably be easy to create a link, or a script called pg_XXX that
executes the command XXX. I'd rather have createdb instead of pg_createdb
just because it's easier to type. A script that creates the pg_ command
names could be written and made available at someone's web site for peopl
"Adam Lang" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> I'd assume a problem with changing all the commands now is that it may break
> a lot of people's scripts and programs.
Well, we've done it before ;-). If memory serves, the create/drop
scripts *were* named pg_xxx a few years back. I forget the reasons
t
neral" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Sent: Thursday, September 28, 2000 9:39 AM
Subject: [GENERAL] Command names
I know all of you are accustomed to the command line interface for pgsql.
(Of course, some of you created it!) However, I'd be interested if anyone
else feels the way I do
I
QL-General
Sent: Thursday, September 28, 2000 9:39 AM
Subject: [GENERAL] Command names
I know all of you are accustomed to the command line interface for pgsql.
(Of course, some of you created it!) However, I'd be interested if anyone
else feels the way I do
I would prefer to have a consist
I know all of you are accustomed to the command
line interface for pgsql. (Of course, some of you created it!)
However, I'd be interested if anyone else feels the way I do
I would prefer to have a consistent set of names
for the commands. For example,
I propose the following:
Inst
