* F. Jovan Jester ([EMAIL PROTECTED]) wrote:
> 1. a - old notation
> 2. a
> 3. e & d
> 4. b & c
*blink*
hmm. How about 1 and 2?
(is this an April fools joke?)
Stephen
signature.asc
Description: Digital signature
1. a - old notation
2. a
3. e & d
4. b & c
--
Sent via pgsql-general mailing list (pgsql-general@postgresql.org)
To make changes to your subscription:
http://www.postgresql.org/mailpref/pgsql-general
1) What type of names do you prefer?
---
b) new one with pg_ prefix - pg_createdb, pg_creteuser ...
2) How often do you use these tools?
---
a) every day (e.g. in my cron)
3) What name of initdb do you prefer?
--
On 01/04/2008, Steve Crawford <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> One advantage of using a consistent prefix is that when you have
> forgotten the exact name of a rarely used command and you are using a
> shell with readline support, "pg_" will bring up a list of
> available commands.
For any value of
I've only been peripherally watching this thread and this may have been
mentioned...
One advantage of using a consistent prefix is that when you have
forgotten the exact name of a rarely used command and you are using a
shell with readline support, "pg_" will bring up a list of
available comm
Tino Wildenhain wrote:
Chris Browne wrote:
...
pg_ctl is really more like the scripts in /etc/init.d; whatever it
"ought" to be called instead, I don't think "safe_postgresqld" is
it...
eek. where is that save_ something coming from?
From safe_mysqld , I imagine. I never understood the ration
Chris Browne wrote:
...
pg_ctl is really more like the scripts in /etc/init.d; whatever it
"ought" to be called instead, I don't think "safe_postgresqld" is
it...
eek. where is that save_ something coming from? Apache uses
apachectl which seems pretty forward - pg_ctl seems to be in
the same s
Although I, too, am not fond of the current command names, I'm not aware
of a naming conflict that is serious enough to warrant renaming. Do we
have even one example of one significant naming conflict?
Renaming executable seems likely to create much more confusion that it
will solve. I loathe th
On Thu, Mar 27, 2008 at 10:41:52PM -, Greg Sabino Mullane wrote:
>
> For the record, I think any renaming is a terrible idea, and a solution
> in search of a problem. Any change, no matter how long it takes, will
> break untold number of scripts, make us look bad, and frustrate
> people, simil
Joshua D. Drake wrote:
> I would note that system utilities can be renamed at the packagers
> behest.
>
> ./configure --exec-prefix=pg
>
> Yes this would create pgpg_ctl.
No, this would make configure abort with an error message.
--
Sent via pgsql-general mailing list (pgsql-general@postgresql.o
On Fri, Mar 28, 2008 at 3:41 PM, Tomasz Ostrowski
<[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> On 2008-03-28 02:00, Andrej Ricnik-Bay wrote:
> > On 28/03/2008, Dawid Kuroczko <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> >> Agree, except I would prefer "pg" instead of "pgc".
> >
>
> > And it's been taken for about 35 years by
On 2008-03-28 02:00, Andrej Ricnik-Bay wrote:
> On 28/03/2008, Dawid Kuroczko <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>> Agree, except I would prefer "pg" instead of "pgc".
>
> And it's been taken for about 35 years by a Unix command called "page".
> From its man-page.
>pg - browse pagewise through te
Adam Rich wrote:
> > > Oh, then there should have been some options in the survey along the
> > > lines of "things are fine how they are."
> >
> > Oh, a bit of answer-forcing wasn't beneath him.
>
>
> Ummm... Isn't that what Option A is about ?
>
>
> 1) What type of names do you prefer?
> --
Greg Sabino Mullane napsal(a):
Nobody want to rename psql. Personaly, I dislike current command
names for long long time. Many times I tried create unix user by
createuser command. And these names could be potential names of
system commands.
Yours is the first time I've heard of anyone with
On Mar 26, 2008, at 7:25 AM, Zdeněk Kotala wrote:
1) What type of names do you prefer?
---
a) old notation - createdb, createuser ...
2) How often do you use these tools?
---
a) every day (e.g. in my cron)
b) one per week
c) one tim
> > Oh, then there should have been some options in the survey along the
> > lines of "things are fine how they are."
>
> Oh, a bit of answer-forcing wasn't beneath him.
Ummm... Isn't that what Option A is about ?
1) What type of names do you prefer?
---
a) old no
On 28/03/2008, Dawid Kuroczko <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> Agree, except I would prefer "pg" instead of "pgc".
>
> With "pg" I am sure that the comand is "generic to the extreme", so I don't
> have to assume what does "c" stand for. Control? Create? Client? or
> Command.
>
> Also its about
On Mar 27, 2008, at 5:41 PM, Tom Lane wrote:
Zdenek Kotala <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
Naz Gassiep napsal(a):
So I ask again, we're not seriously thinking about this are we?
Yes, we are.
Make that "Zdenek is". The reason for this survey is that he's hoping
to gather enough ammunition to
Ben <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> On Mar 27, 2008, at 5:41 PM, Tom Lane wrote:
>> Make that "Zdenek is". The reason for this survey is that he's hoping
>> to gather enough ammunition to overrule the opposition.
> Oh, then there should have been some options in the survey along the
> lines of "t
Gregory Williamson wrote:
No can do, already taken:
"> man pg
Reformatting pg(1), please wait...
PG(1) User
Commands PG(1)
NAME
pg - browse pagewise through text files
Good catch. Haven't used th
Dawid Kuroczko escribió:
> On Thu, Mar 27, 2008 at 11:49 PM, Greg Smith <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> > pgc cluster
>
> Agree, except I would prefer "pg" instead of "pgc".
pg is already taken by an ancient Unix pager utility (predecessor of
more, less, etc)
--
Alvaro Herrera
Dawid wrote:
[...]
>
> > abbreviations in cases where there's some overlap in characters:
> >
> > pgc cluster
> [...]
>
> Agree, except I would prefer "pg" instead of "pgc".
>
No can do, already taken:
"> man pg
Reformatting pg(1), please wait...
PG(1)
On Thu, Mar 27, 2008 at 11:49 PM, Greg Smith <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> On Thu, 27 Mar 2008, Leif B. Kristensen wrote:
>
> > I figure something like the more or less standard options for modern
> > *nixes, with short and long options like eg.
> > pgc -C, --createdb ...
>
> The idea thrown out
Zdenek Kotala <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> Naz Gassiep napsal(a):
>> So I ask again, we're not seriously thinking about this are we?
> Yes, we are.
Make that "Zdenek is". The reason for this survey is that he's hoping
to gather enough ammunition to overrule the opposition.
In any case, there *
On Thu, 27 Mar 2008, Leif B. Kristensen wrote:
I figure something like the more or less standard options for modern
*nixes, with short and long options like eg.
pgc -C, --createdb ...
The idea thrown out was to use something like the CVS/svn model where a
single command gets called followed b
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: RIPEMD160
> Yes, I understand your point of view, but on other side there
> are arguments in discussion, that for newbies old name are
> terrible to use and frankly, who reads manual before he start
> to use a product?
This is a terrible argument.
> Nob
- Original Message -
From: "Zdenek Kotala" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
To: "Naz Gassiep" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Cc: "PostgreSQL"
Sent: Thursday, March 27, 2008 4:31 PM
Subject: Re: [GENERAL] Survey: renaming/removing script binaries (created
Naz Gassiep napsal(a):
We're not seriously thinking of changing these are we? Once a command
set has been in use for as long a time as the PG command set has, any
benefit that may be derived by new users with an aversion to
documentation reading is vastly offset by the confusion that would
Tom Lane napsal(a):
Alvaro Herrera <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
Tom Lane wrote:
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 curr
On Thursday 27. March 2008, Alvaro Herrera wrote:
>Zdenek Kotala wrote:
>> And what about two commands one for create and one for drop?
>> It save 6 or 4 chars.
>>
>> pgc db (as create db)
>> pgc user
>> pgd db (as drop db)
>> pgd user
>
>Well, there are things besides create and drop -- for exam
Alvaro Herrera napsal(a):
Zdenek Kotala wrote:
And what about two commands one for create and one for drop?
It save 6 or 4 chars.
pgc db (as create db)
pgc user
pgd db (as drop db)
pgd user
Well, there are things besides create and drop -- for example vacuum.
Yeah, good point I forgot v
Zdenek Kotala wrote:
> And what about two commands one for create and one for drop?
> It save 6 or 4 chars.
>
> pgc db (as create db)
> pgc user
> pgd db (as drop db)
> pgd user
Well, there are things besides create and drop -- for example vacuum.
--
Alvaro Herrera
Alvaro Herrera napsal(a):
Tom Lane wrote:
Alvaro Herrera <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
Greg Smith wrote:
And if anybody suggests putting a "_" in something I have to type all the
time, I will stick my fingers in my ears and start yelling until they
stop. Bad enough I have to type pg_ctl a few
On Wed, Mar 26, 2008 at 6:46 PM, Ron Mayer
<[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> Zdeněk Kotala wrote:
>
> > 1) What type of names do you prefer?
>
> I'd prefer a "pg" program that took as arguments
> the command. So you'd have "pg createdb" instead
> of "pg_createdb".
>
> There are many precedents. "c
> 1) What type of names do you prefer?
1 b
> 2) How often do you use these tools?
2 c
> 3) What name of initdb do you prefer?
3 e (pg_createcluster by Debian), then d or b
> 4) How do you perform VACUUM?
4 c b (autovac & sql vacuum)
Regards,
Dawid
--
Sent via pgsql-general mailing li
Tom Lane wrote:
> Alvaro Herrera <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> > Greg Smith wrote:
> >> And if anybody suggests putting a "_" in something I have to type all the
> >> time, I will stick my fingers in my ears and start yelling until they
> >> stop. Bad enough I have to type pg_ctl a few times ev
Alvaro Herrera <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> Greg Smith wrote:
>> And if anybody suggests putting a "_" in something I have to type all the
>> time, I will stick my fingers in my ears and start yelling until they
>> stop. Bad enough I have to type pg_ctl a few times every day now.
> alias pgct
Greg Smith wrote:
> And if anybody suggests putting a "_" in something I have to type all the
> time, I will stick my fingers in my ears and start yelling until they
> stop. Bad enough I have to type pg_ctl a few times every day now.
alias pgctl=pg_ctl
--
Alvaro Herrera
On Thu, 27 Mar 2008, Alvaro Herrera wrote:
Greg Smith wrote:
And if anybody suggests putting a "_" in something I have to type all the
time...
alias pgctl=pg_ctl
If I were allowed to change the login profile on every system I touch I
wouldn't be typing pg_ctl at all; I'd be typing "up" and
Shane Ambler wrote:
Greg Smith wrote:
And if anybody suggests putting a "_" in something I have to type all
the time, I will stick my fingers in my ears and start yelling until
they stop. Bad enough I have to type pg_ctl a few times every day now.
+10 on hating "_"
+20 if need be, I'd go
In article <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>,
Tom Lane <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
>> I note that we can continue to have the current executables stashed in
>> PREFIX/share/libexec and let the "pg" executable exec them.
> Not share/ surely, since these are executables, but yeah.
> This brings me to the idea t
Zdeněk Kotala pisze:
Hello All,
1) What type of names do you prefer?
b) new one with pg_ prefix - pg_createdb, pg_creteuser ...
b
2) How often do you use these tools?
b) one per week
b
3) What name of initdb do you prefer?
c) pg_init
c
4) How do you perform VACUUM?
a) vacuumdb - shell co
On 27/03/2008, Zdeněk Kotala <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> 1) What type of names do you prefer?
> ---
> a) old notation - createdb, createuser ...
a) Never seen any clashes with other tools in terms of names.
And the old sys-admin creed: don't fix it if it ain't
> Please let us know your meaning,
>
> 1) What type of names do you prefer?
> ---
a) with c) as a second choice. Keep names simple.
> 2) How often do you use these tools?
> ---
a)
> 3) What name of initdb do you prefer?
> -- -
Zdeněk Kotala a écrit :
I prepared patch for renaming postgreSQL script tools like createdb,
createuser, etc. to pg_createdb, pg_creteuser. Original names will be
kept for 2 or 3 following versions. The main reason for the patch is to
avoid possible clash of names with systems tools.
And afte
Greg Smith wrote:
And if anybody suggests putting a "_" in something I have to type all
the time, I will stick my fingers in my ears and start yelling until
they stop. Bad enough I have to type pg_ctl a few times every day now.
+10 on hating "_"
--
Shane Ambler
pgSQL (at) Sheeky (dot) Biz
1) What type of names do you prefer?
---
a) old notation - createdb, createuser ...
b) new one with pg_ prefix - pg_createdb, pg_creteuser ...
c) new one with pg prefix - pgcreatedb, pgcreateuser ...
d) remove them - psql is the solution
e) remove them - pgadmin is th
On Wed, 26 Mar 2008, Steve Atkins wrote:
These were mostly rhetorical suggestions. Not serious in themselves,
but hoping to make people come clean about why name changes of
binaries might be needed.
So far I haven't seen anyone besides Zdenek gives a reason why this is
worth the trouble, and
On Wed, Mar 26, 2008 at 03:25:04PM +0100, Zdeněk Kotala wrote:
> Hello All,
>
> I prepared patch for renaming postgreSQL script tools like createdb,
> createuser, etc. to pg_createdb, pg_creteuser. Original names will be kept
> for 2 or 3 following versions. The main reason for the patch is to av
[EMAIL PROTECTED] (Steve Atkins) writes:
> There are no existing clashes with system tools that I'm aware of. Are
> there any? Most of the clashes are with other installations of
> postgresql installed on the same machine, so if name clashes is the
> real reason for the change, then the version num
Zdenek Kotala wrote:
> One of my original idea was to create pg_cmd command which will integrate
> all create/drop command in one. For example
>
> pg_cmd create database
> pg_cmd list user
>
> and so on.
I do like this idea, though I don't like the pg_cmd name, because it
conflicts with pg_ctl o
Alvaro Herrera <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> Tom Lane wrote:
>> 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 executabl
1) What type of names do you prefer?
---
b) new one with pg_ prefix - pg_createdb, pg_creteuser ...
2) How often do you use these tools?
---
b) one per week
3) What name of initdb do you prefer?
-- --
b)
Alvaro Herrera napsal(a):
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 easie
Ron Mayer napsal(a):
Zdeněk Kotala wrote:
1) What type of names do you prefer?
I'd prefer a "pg" program that took as arguments
the command. So you'd have "pg createdb" instead
of "pg_createdb".
There are many precedents. "cvs update", "git pull"
"apt-get install".
Anyone else like this ap
Tom Lane napsal(a):
"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 yo
Ron Mayer napsal(a):
Tom Lane wrote:
"Leif B. Kristensen" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
On Wednesday 26. March 2008, Ron Mayer wrote:
...a "pg" program that took as arguments
the command. So you'd have "pg createdb" instead
of "pg_createdb".
I'll second that. ...
I like this too.
Though
Tom Lane wrote:
"Leif B. Kristensen" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
On Wednesday 26. March 2008, Ron Mayer wrote:
...a "pg" program that took as arguments
the command. So you'd have "pg createdb" instead
of "pg_createdb".
I'll second that. ...
I like this too.
Though I guess we might need
Le Wednesday 26 March 2008 15:25:04 Zdeněk Kotala, vous avez écrit :
> 1) What type of names do you prefer?
> ---
>
> a) old notation - createdb, createuser ...
> b) new one with pg_ prefix - pg_createdb, pg_creteuser ...
> c) new one with pg prefix - pgcreatedb, pgcreat
On Wednesday 26 March 2008 16:25, Zdeněk Kotala wrote:
> 1) What type of names do you prefer?
> ---
b) new one with pg_ prefix - pg_createdb, pg_creteuser ...
>
> 2) How often do you use these tools?
> ---
>
b) one per week
>
>
> 3) W
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 o
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 like this too. It'd be considerably more work than the current
- Original Message -
From: Zden?k Kotala <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Date: Wednesday, March 26, 2008 10:25 am
Subject: [GENERAL] Survey: renaming/removing script binaries
(createdb, createuser...)
> Hello All,
>
> I prepared patch for renaming postgreSQL script tools l
On Mar 26, 2008, at 11:44 AM, Leif B. Kristensen wrote:
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".
There are many precedents. "cvs update", "git pull"
"apt-get install".
An
"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
> i
On Mar 26, 2008, at 12:06 PM, Tom Lane wrote:
Steve Atkins <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
On Mar 26, 2008, at 10:46 AM, Alvaro Herrera wrote:
Steve Atkins wrote:
"pg_ctl" to "safe_postgresqld",
Now that's plain weird.
Yes, it is. But if the goal is to make it more approachable for
people
Steve Atkins <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> On Mar 26, 2008, at 10:46 AM, Alvaro Herrera wrote:
>> Steve Atkins wrote:
>>> "pg_ctl" to "safe_postgresqld",
>>
>> Now that's plain weird.
> Yes, it is. But if the goal is to make it more approachable for people
> who are familiar with mysql, but not p
Alvaro Herrera wrote:
Steve Atkins wrote:
There are no existing clashes with system tools that I'm aware of. Are
there any? Most of the clashes are with other installations of
postgresql installed on the same machine, so if name clashes is the real
reason for the change, then the version nu
1. b
2. a
3. b (must be consistent with 1st question prefix)
4. c, b
Bruno Lavoie
Zdeněk Kotala a écrit :
Hello All,
I prepared patch for renaming postgreSQL script tools like createdb,
createuser, etc. to pg_createdb, pg_creteuser. Original names will be
kept for 2 or 3 following versions.
On Wed, 26 Mar 2008, Zdeněk Kotala <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> 1) What type of names do you prefer?
> ---
> b) new one with pg_ prefix - pg_createdb, pg_creteuser ...
OTOH,
> d) remove them - psql is the solution
> 2) How often do you use these tools?
>
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".
>
>There are many precedents. "cvs update", "git pull"
>"apt-get install".
>
>Anyone else like this approach?
I'll second that. It
On Wed, 26 Mar 2008 11:09:48 -0700
Steve Atkins <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> Yes, it is. But if the goal is to make it more approachable for
> people who
> are familiar with mysql, but not prepared to read postgresql
> documentation
> it's also the obvious change to make.
I would note that sys
On 26/03/2008, Zdeněk Kotala <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> Hello All,
>
> I prepared patch for renaming postgreSQL script tools like createdb,
> createuser,
> etc. to pg_createdb, pg_creteuser. Original names will be kept for 2 or 3
> following versions. The main reason for the patch is to avoid
On Mar 26, 2008, at 10:46 AM, Alvaro Herrera wrote:
Steve Atkins wrote:
There are no existing clashes with system tools that I'm aware of.
Are
there any? Most of the clashes are with other installations of
postgresql installed on the same machine, so if name clashes is the
real
reason for
Zdeněk Kotala wrote:
1) What type of names do you prefer?
I'd prefer a "pg" program that took as arguments
the command. So you'd have "pg createdb" instead
of "pg_createdb".
There are many precedents. "cvs update", "git pull"
"apt-get install".
Anyone else like this approach?
Of the choice
Steve Atkins wrote:
> There are no existing clashes with system tools that I'm aware of. Are
> there any? Most of the clashes are with other installations of
> postgresql installed on the same machine, so if name clashes is the real
> reason for the change, then the version number or port num
On Wed, 26 Mar 2008, Zdenk Kotala wrote:
1) What type of names do you prefer?
---
b) new one with pg_ prefix - pg_createdb, pg_creteuser ...
2) How often do you use these tools?
---
b) one per week
3) What name of initdb do you pr
At 11:04a -0400 on Wed, 26 Mar 2008, Ivan Sergio Borgonovo wrote:
> - maybe a pg[something] action may be better integrated with
> bash auto-completion without rewriting a sql parser
$ cat ~/.hypothetical_bashrc
...
complete -o default -F postgres_completion_function pg_cmd
...
$ pg_cmd
CREAT
On Wednesday 26 March 2008, Zdeněk Kotala <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> 1) What type of names do you prefer?
> ---
>
> a) old notation - createdb, createuser ...
> b) new one with pg_ prefix - pg_createdb, pg_creteuser ...
> c) new one with pg prefix - pgcreatedb, pgcreat
On Mar 26, 2008, at 7:25 AM, Zdeněk Kotala wrote:
Hello All,
I prepared patch for renaming postgreSQL script tools like createdb,
createuser, etc. to pg_createdb, pg_creteuser. Original names will
be kept for 2 or 3 following versions. The main reason for the patch
is to avoid possible cl
At 10:25a -0400 on Wed, 26 Mar 2008, Zdeněk Kotala wrote:
> And after long discussion on patches and hackers list we have made a
> decision than we need input from wide audience. This is a reason why
> I prepare following surveys.
1. b
2. b
3. b (but whichever, just be consistent)
4. b & c
I don'
1) What type of names do you prefer?
---
a) old notation - createdb, createuser ...
b) new one with pg_ prefix - pg_createdb, pg_creteuser ...
c) new one with pg prefix - pgcreatedb, pgcreateuser ...
d) remove them - psql is the solution
e) remove them - pgadmin is the
-- Forwarded message --
From: Joey K. <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Date: Wed, Mar 26, 2008 at 9:42 AM
Subject: Re: [GENERAL] Survey: renaming/removing script binaries (createdb,
createuser...)
To: Zdeněk Kotala <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Please let us know
Zdeněk Kotala <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> 1) What type of names do you prefer?
>
> d) remove them - psql is the solution
>
>
> 2) How often do you use these tools?
>
> d) never
>
>
> 3) What name of initdb do you prefer?
>
> a) initdb
>
>
> 4) How do you perform VACUUM?
>
> b) VACUUM - SQL comm
1.) b
2.) a
3.) b
4.) a+c
On Wed, 26 Mar 2008 15:25:04 +0100 Zden__k Kotala <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> thought
long, then sat down and wrote:
> Hello All,
>
> I prepared patch for renaming postgreSQL script tools like createdb,
> createuser,
> etc. to pg_createdb, pg_creteuser. Original names will b
> 1) What type of names do you prefer?
> ---
a.
> 2) How often do you use these tools?
> ---
b.
> 3) What name of initdb do you prefer?
> -- --
d.
> 4) How do you perform VACUUM?
>
1. b
2. c
3. d
4. b and c
I do most of my admin using SQL these days. my preference would be
towards keeping them because they're nice in the beginning.
Sam
--
Sent via pgsql-general mailing list (pgsql-general@postgresql.org)
To make changes to your subscription:
http://www.postgresql.o
1. b
2. b
3. b
4. c
---
Raymond O'Donnell, Director of Music, Galway Cathedral, Ireland
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
---
--
Sent via pgsql-general mailing list (pgsql-general@postgresql.o
On Wed, 26 Mar 2008 15:25:04 +0100
Zdeněk Kotala <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> Please let us know your meaning,
I hope it is the right place where to post.
> 1) What type of names do you prefer?
> c) new one with pg prefix - pgcreatedb, pgcreateuser ...
I'd like the idea of having one command +
1) b
2) c
3) d
4) b & c
--
Mailed by:
UnReAl4U - unreal4u
ICQ #: 54472056
www: http://www.chilehardware.com/
Zdeněk Kotala escribió:
Hello All,
I prepared patch for renaming postgreSQL script tools like createdb,
createuser, etc. to pg_createdb, pg_creteuser. Original names will be
kept for 2 or 3 following versions. The main reason for the patch is
to avoid possible clash of names with systems tool
Zdeněk Kotala wrote:
1) What type of names do you prefer?
---
a) old notation - createdb, createuser ...
b) new one with pg_ prefix - pg_createdb, pg_creteuser ...
c) new one with pg prefix - pgcreatedb, pgcreateuser ...
d) remove them - psql is the solution
e) remove
>
> Please let us know your meaning,
>
> thanks Zdenek Kotala
>
1. c
2. a
3. other = "pginitdb", to be consistent with pgcreatedb,etc
4. a
--
Sent via pgsql-general mailing list (pgsql-general@postgresql.org)
To make changes to your subscription:
http://www.postgresql.org/mai
Hello All,
I prepared patch for renaming postgreSQL script tools like createdb, createuser,
etc. to pg_createdb, pg_creteuser. Original names will be kept for 2 or 3
following versions. The main reason for the patch is to avoid possible clash of
names with systems tools.
And after long discu
94 matches
Mail list logo
