createdb has lost its ability to supply a default database name, and
now *requires* an argument to run. Did we make this change because it
was difficult or impossible to get the default argument on some of our
supported platforms? Or did we make the change because it is "more
correct" or something?

I'm finding it annoying to retrain my fingers to type more stuff to
get the same functionality as before ;)

                    - Thomas

-- 
Thomas Lockhart				lockhart@alumni.caltech.edu
South Pasadena, California

Thu, 10 Feb 2000 15:42:50 +0000
Thomas Lockhart <lockhart@alumni.caltech.edu>
createdb default arguments
On Thu, 10 Feb 2000, Thomas Lockhart wrote:

> createdb has lost its ability to supply a default database name, and
> now *requires* an argument to run. Did we make this change because it
> was difficult or impossible to get the default argument on some of our
> supported platforms? Or did we make the change because it is "more
> correct" or something?

What was supposed to be the default argument?

> 
> I'm finding it annoying to retrain my fingers to type more stuff to
> get the same functionality as before ;)

Can be fixed. Probably something that happened during the massive rewrite
phase.

-- 
Peter Eisentraut                  Sernanders vaeg 10:115
peter_e@gmx.net                   75262 Uppsala
http://yi.org/peter-e/            Sweden


Thu, 10 Feb 2000 17:08:14 +0100 (MET)
Peter Eisentraut <e99re41@DoCS.UU.SE>
Re: [HACKERS] createdb default arguments
> On Thu, 10 Feb 2000, Thomas Lockhart wrote:
> 
> > createdb has lost its ability to supply a default database name, and
> > now *requires* an argument to run. Did we make this change because it
> > was difficult or impossible to get the default argument on some of our
> > supported platforms? Or did we make the change because it is "more
> > correct" or something?
> 
> What was supposed to be the default argument?

Peter reminder that perl does not compile, I believe because of pqbool.

-- 
  Bruce Momjian                        |  http://www.op.net/~candle
  pgman@candle.pha.pa.us               |  (610) 853-3000
  +  If your life is a hard drive,     |  830 Blythe Avenue
  +  Christ can be your backup.        |  Drexel Hill, Pennsylvania 19026

Thu, 10 Feb 2000 11:19:06 -0500 (EST)
Bruce Momjian <pgman@candle.pha.pa.us>
Re: [HACKERS] createdb default arguments
On Thu, 10 Feb 2000, Thomas Lockhart wrote:

> > > createdb has lost its ability to supply a default database name...
> > What was supposed to be the default argument?
> 
> Ah! Same as for psql: the account name on the process running it (ie
> the user's name).

Will be done.

-- 
Peter Eisentraut                  Sernanders vaeg 10:115
peter_e@gmx.net                   75262 Uppsala
http://yi.org/peter-e/            Sweden


Thu, 10 Feb 2000 17:27:13 +0100 (MET)
Peter Eisentraut <e99re41@DoCS.UU.SE>
Re: [HACKERS] createdb default arguments
> > createdb has lost its ability to supply a default database name...
> What was supposed to be the default argument?

Ah! Same as for psql: the account name on the process running it (ie
the user's name).

                    - Thomas

-- 
Thomas Lockhart				lockhart@alumni.caltech.edu
South Pasadena, California

Thu, 10 Feb 2000 16:30:45 +0000
Thomas Lockhart <lockhart@alumni.caltech.edu>
Re: [HACKERS] createdb default arguments
Bruce Momjian wrote:
> > What was supposed to be the default argument?
 
> Peter reminder that perl does not compile, I believe because of pqbool.

He's fixed that, at least in the version I was building the other night
when I was griping about the man pages.....

--
Lamar Owen
WGCR Internet Radio
1 Peter 4:11

Thu, 10 Feb 2000 12:51:35 -0500
Lamar Owen <lamar.owen@wgcr.org>
Re: [HACKERS] createdb default arguments
On 2000-02-10, Thomas Lockhart mentioned:

> > > createdb has lost its ability to supply a default database name...
> > What was supposed to be the default argument?
> 
> Ah! Same as for psql: the account name on the process running it (ie
> the user's name).

This is fixed now, but I don't suppose you want dropdb's default behaviour
to be along those same lines. I'd have a serious problem with that, even
though old destroydb used to do that.

-- 
Peter Eisentraut                  Sernanders vï¿½g 10:115
peter_e@gmx.net                   75262 Uppsala
http://yi.org/peter-e/            Sweden


Thu, 10 Feb 2000 21:06:06 +0100 (CET)
Peter Eisentraut <peter_e@gmx.net>
Re: [HACKERS] createdb default arguments
> This is fixed now, but I don't suppose you want dropdb's default behaviour
> to be along those same lines. I'd have a serious problem with that, even
> though old destroydb used to do that.

Hmm, I think I see a correct answer in the way you phrased the
question :)

You are right, the downside to a default argument for dropdb would
argue strongly for supplying *no* default argument. For "create" kinds
of things, the downside is minimal, and the convenience is high.

                     - Thomas

-- 
Thomas Lockhart				lockhart@alumni.caltech.edu
South Pasadena, California

Thu, 10 Feb 2000 21:51:41 +0000
Thomas Lockhart <lockhart@alumni.caltech.edu>
Re: [HACKERS] createdb default arguments