Tom Lane wrote:
> "Leif B. Kristensen" <leif@solumslekt.org> 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.