> > > Okay, I have the following voting results:
> > > 2 for pgcreatedb, pgdropdb, pgcreateuser, pgdropuser (Bruce, me)
> > > 1 for pg_createdb, pg_dropdb, etc. (Sergio K.)
> > > 1/2 for pgadduser, etc., or sth. like that (Marc)
> > > 1/2 for leave as is (Thomas)
> > > 1 for drop altogether (Marc)
> > I vote with Thomas - leave as is. But I don't understand the tallying.
> > Did Thomas shrink so as to only get a halfa vote? :)
> He didn't make his opinion exactly clear, except that the underscores are
> a sign of the coming apocalypse. (If you ask Marc, he can probably give
> you an alternate theory here...)
OK, let me be clear. imho there is no strong consensus on this, which
would lead us toward *leave it as it is*! I'll put Marc (motto: "no
wusses!") on the lunatic fringe for suggesting that we drop all user
conveniences, but istm that we are solving a problem which isn't a
problem. And we are changing the user interface which has been in
place for (at least) the last three years based on no documented name
space conflict and no widely reported problems from users.
I can see how some might want some clearer way to figure out available
postgres command-line commands using ls and grep. If so, prepending
"pg" will help, but forget the underscores and convince more of us
that it is necessary, please. Why should a regular user have to type
the extra two characters anyway? Should we mention in the v7.0 release
notes that we are now "carpal tunnel hostile"??
> Hmm, I guess that does it. pg_createdb and symlinks for one release with
> warnings for deprecated forms.
ack!
> Perhaps we should really change the installation instructions to not make
> mention of the scripts, though, to enforce proper learning. But you were
> working on that anyway, right?
sigh. We should get rid of all of the other language interfaces too;
any real programmer can do it with psql and bash. Hmm, maybe even psql
is a luxury ;)
- Thomas
--
Thomas Lockhart lockhart@alumni.caltech.edu
South Pasadena, California