Re: script binaries renaming

Zdenek Kotala <Zdenek.Kotala@Sun.COM> writes:
> There is group of people who has different opinion. The main reasons for
> this patch are 1) names could collide with system tools

That argument is purely theoretical, though, since no one has complained
to us of an *actual* collision.  With these utilities having been around
with their current names for more than ten years, I think we've
established sufficient squatter's rights on the names ;-).  No doubt
we'd do it differently if starting in a green field, but we're not
starting in a green field.  There's enough usage precedent now that I
doubt we can ever remove the existing names, which leaves me wondering
what is the point.

> By the way my original idea was create new command "pg_cmd", which
> integrates all in one include missing commands(e.g. createtablespace).

There doesn't seem to be anyone but you who feels any attraction to that
concept.  These utilities have a wide enough difference in behavior and
intended usage that ISTM force-fitting them into a single binary would
just increase confusion and difficulty of use.

            regards, tom lane