At 10:56 PM 7/23/98, The Hermit Hacker wrote:
>On Thu, 23 Jul 1998, Maarten Boekhold wrote:

>> In fact, they are handled by SQL: CREATE DATABASE and DROP DATABASE. The
>> createdb and destroydb tools just call these SQL statements....
>
>        Here's an odd thought:
>
>        Let's remove the "I don't want to think" utilities like
>{create,destroy}{db,user} and force DBA's to actually use the *proper*
>functions.

:-)

Actually...

While the man pages indicate that these invoke psql, and that a postmaster
must be running, and somebody really smart could infer that that means that
there is SQL to do the action, it would be much, much better if the man
pages explicitly stated that it was merely a shortcut to using the sql.

--
--
-- "TANSTAAFL" Rich lynch@lscorp.com



Thu, 23 Jul 1998 21:29:23 -0500
lynch@lscorp.com (Richard Lynch)
Re: [GENERAL] Re: [HACKERS] [Fwd: SGVLLUG Oracle and Informix on
	Linux]
> >> In fact, they are handled by SQL: CREATE DATABASE and DROP DATABASE. The
> >> createdb and destroydb tools just call these SQL statements....

> >        Let's remove the "I don't want to think" utilities like
> >{create,destroy}{db,user} and force DBA's to actually use the *proper*
> >functions.

> While the man pages indicate that these invoke psql, and that a postmaster
> must be running, and somebody really smart could infer that that means that
> there is SQL to do the action, it would be much, much better if the man
> pages explicitly stated that it was merely a shortcut to using the sql.

I think only doing it the SQL way would be fine. Documentation would, of
course, have to cover it. I want, no need, to know what functionality
belongs to SQL and what belongs to PostgreSQL. I've certainly not got any
qualms about dropping into psql to do things. I like psql.


Bruce Tong                 |  Got me an office; I'm there late at night.
Systems Programmer         |  Just send me e-mail, maybe I'll write.
Electronic Vision / FITNE  |  
zztong@laxmi.ev.net        |  -- Joe Walsh for the 21st Century



Fri, 24 Jul 1998 08:42:13 -0400 (EDT)
Bruce Tong <zztong@laxmi.ev.net>
Re: [GENERAL] Re: [HACKERS] [Fwd: SGVLLUG Oracle and Informix on
	Linux]
> > >> In fact, they are handled by SQL: CREATE DATABASE and DROP DATABASE. The
> > >> createdb and destroydb tools just call these SQL statements....
> 
> > >        Let's remove the "I don't want to think" utilities like
> > >{create,destroy}{db,user} and force DBA's to actually use the *proper*
> > >functions.
> 
> > While the man pages indicate that these invoke psql, and that a postmaster
> > must be running, and somebody really smart could infer that that means that
> > there is SQL to do the action, it would be much, much better if the man
> > pages explicitly stated that it was merely a shortcut to using the sql.
> 
> I think only doing it the SQL way would be fine. Documentation would, of
> course, have to cover it. I want, no need, to know what functionality
> belongs to SQL and what belongs to PostgreSQL. I've certainly not got any
> qualms about dropping into psql to do things. I like psql.

They have to connect to template1 to do the work.  Currently, they don't
need to know template1 even exists, so it seems like an added burden.  I
will add a mention to the createdb, destroydb man pages.  createuser
does psql too.

-- 
Bruce Momjian                          |  830 Blythe Avenue
maillist@candle.pha.pa.us              |  Drexel Hill, Pennsylvania 19026
  +  If your life is a hard drive,     |  (610) 353-9879(w)
  +  Christ can be your backup.        |  (610) 853-3000(h)

Fri, 24 Jul 1998 12:05:05 -0400 (EDT)
Bruce Momjian <maillist@candle.pha.pa.us>
Re: [DOCS] Re: [GENERAL] Re: [HACKERS] [Fwd: SGVLLUG Oracle and
	Informix on Linux]
> They have to connect to template1 to do the work.  Currently, they don't
> need to know template1 even exists, so it seems like an added burden.  I
> will add a mention to the createdb, destroydb man pages.  createuser
> does psql too.

And as a result, I didn't know what template1 was for until now, and I
fear there's more to it than just this. Up until this point, I assumed
"template1" was an example database which could be copied, or something.
At least that's what a template is to me.

Okay, I've suspected there was more to "template1" for a little while now,
but I'd not gotten around to looking into it more. Still, my first
impression was it was a sample database. ;) Maybe a name like "master"
would be clearer, or maybe that means something else to someone.


Bruce Tong                 |  Got me an office; I'm there late at night.
Systems Programmer         |  Just send me e-mail, maybe I'll write.
Electronic Vision / FITNE  |  
zztong@laxmi.ev.net        |  -- Joe Walsh for the 21st Century


Fri, 24 Jul 1998 12:29:42 -0400 (EDT)
Bruce Tong <zztong@laxmi.ev.net>
Re: [DOCS] Re: [GENERAL] Re: [HACKERS] [Fwd: SGVLLUG Oracle and
	Informix on Linux]
> Okay, I've suspected there was more to "template1" for a little while now,
> but I'd not gotten around to looking into it more. Still, my first
> impression was it was a sample database. ;) Maybe a name like "master"
> would be clearer, or maybe that means something else to someone.
> 

Yes, master would be a better name than template1.

-- 
Bruce Momjian                          |  830 Blythe Avenue
maillist@candle.pha.pa.us              |  Drexel Hill, Pennsylvania 19026
  +  If your life is a hard drive,     |  (610) 353-9879(w)
  +  Christ can be your backup.        |  (610) 853-3000(h)

Fri, 24 Jul 1998 12:32:45 -0400 (EDT)
Bruce Momjian <maillist@candle.pha.pa.us>
Re: [DOCS] Re: [GENERAL] Re: [HACKERS] [Fwd: SGVLLUG Oracle and
	Informix on Linux]y
On Fri, 24 Jul 1998, Bruce Tong wrote:

> > They have to connect to template1 to do the work.  Currently, they don't
> > need to know template1 even exists, so it seems like an added burden.  I
> > will add a mention to the createdb, destroydb man pages.  createuser
> > does psql too.
> 
> And as a result, I didn't know what template1 was for until now, and I
> fear there's more to it than just this. Up until this point, I assumed
> "template1" was an example database which could be copied, or something.
> At least that's what a template is to me.

	In a sense, that is exactly what it is.  When you do a 'createdb',
it uses template1 as the "template" for the new database, and then buildds
from there...



Fri, 24 Jul 1998 12:34:27 -0400 (EDT)
The Hermit Hacker <scrappy@hub.org>
Re: [DOCS] Re: [GENERAL] Re: [HACKERS] [Fwd: SGVLLUG Oracle and
	Informix on Linux]

> I think only doing it the SQL way would be fine. Documentation would, of
> course, have to cover it

That last sentence says it all..."Documentations would, of course, have to cofver
it."  The reason I used createdb to generate the my database, is that is what the
man page said to do.  Unfortunately it is hard to search in the man pages for
something like:  How do I create a database?.  I think I came accross the
createdb man page via the postgres man page's see also section...james


Fri, 24 Jul 1998 14:27:43 -0400
James Olin Oden <joden@lee.k12.nc.us>
Re: [GENERAL] Re: [HACKERS] [Fwd: SGVLLUG Oracle and Informix on
	Linux]
> 
> > Okay, I've suspected there was more to "template1" for a little while now,
> > but I'd not gotten around to looking into it more. Still, my first
> > impression was it was a sample database. ;) Maybe a name like "master"
> > would be clearer, or maybe that means something else to someone.
> > 
> 
> Yes, master would be a better name than template1.


I disagree. template1 is not only the "master" database, it is also used as
as the template when creating a new database. That is, if you want to create
all your databases with certain characteristics (say installed functions or
types or something) you can set up template1 the way you want, dump it to
the template dump file and then any new db will be created with your
customization. So template1 really is a discriptive term.

-dg


David Gould            dg@illustra.com           510.628.3783 or 510.305.9468 
Informix Software  (No, really)         300 Lakeside Drive  Oakland, CA 94612
 - If simplicity worked, the world would be overrun with insects. -

Fri, 24 Jul 1998 12:09:12 -0700 (PDT)
dg@illustra.com (David Gould)
Re: [DOCS] Re: [GENERAL] Re: [HACKERS] [Fwd: SGVLLUG Oracle and
	Informix on Linux]y
> > 
> > > Okay, I've suspected there was more to "template1" for a little while now,
> > > but I'd not gotten around to looking into it more. Still, my first
> > > impression was it was a sample database. ;) Maybe a name like "master"
> > > would be clearer, or maybe that means something else to someone.
> > > 
> > 
> > Yes, master would be a better name than template1.
> 
> 
> I disagree. template1 is not only the "master" database, it is also used as
> as the template when creating a new database. That is, if you want to create
> all your databases with certain characteristics (say installed functions or
> types or something) you can set up template1 the way you want, dump it to
> the template dump file and then any new db will be created with your
> customization. So template1 really is a discriptive term.

Good point.

-- 
Bruce Momjian                          |  830 Blythe Avenue
maillist@candle.pha.pa.us              |  Drexel Hill, Pennsylvania 19026
  +  If your life is a hard drive,     |  (610) 353-9879(w)
  +  Christ can be your backup.        |  (610) 853-3000(h)

Fri, 24 Jul 1998 15:13:47 -0400 (EDT)
Bruce Momjian <maillist@candle.pha.pa.us>
Re: [DOCS] Re: [GENERAL] Re: [HACKERS] [Fwd: SGVLLUG Oracle and
	Informix on Linux]y
> > > Okay, I've suspected there was more to "template1" for a little while now,
> > > but I'd not gotten around to looking into it more. Still, my first
> > > impression was it was a sample database. ;) Maybe a name like "master"
> > > would be clearer, or maybe that means something else to someone.
> > 
> > Yes, master would be a better name than template1.
> 
> I disagree. template1 is not only the "master" database, it is also used as
> as the template when creating a new database. That is, if you want to create
> all your databases with certain characteristics (say installed functions or
> types or something) you can set up template1 the way you want, dump it to
> the template dump file and then any new db will be created with your
> customization. So template1 really is a discriptive term.

Really? Neat. Okay, its descriptive. Did I miss this in the docs or forget
it? I think this should be mentioned at an appropriate place in the
beginning of the docs. Such as when discussing how to create a database.


Bruce Tong                 |  Got me an office; I'm there late at night.
Systems Programmer         |  Just send me e-mail, maybe I'll write.
Electronic Vision / FITNE  |  
zztong@laxmi.ev.net        |  -- Joe Walsh for the 21st Century



Fri, 24 Jul 1998 16:22:08 -0400 (EDT)
Bruce Tong <zztong@laxmi.ev.net>
Re: [DOCS] Re: [GENERAL] Re: [HACKERS] [Fwd: SGVLLUG Oracle and
	Informix on Linux]y
> > >        Let's remove the "I don't want to think" utilities like
> > >{create,destroy}{db,user} and force DBA's to actually use the *proper*
> > >functions.

IMHO (actually make that IMVeryHO) This is probably a bad idea... We
should just update the man pages to detail the SQL code that can be used
instead of the command.  It doesn't hurt anything/anyone to leave the
programs as they are, and can even be helpful to people writing scripts to
automate management of their servers.

Chris



Mon, 27 Jul 1998 17:06:25 -0400 (EDT)
Chris Johnson <cmj@inline-design.com>
Re: [GENERAL] Re: [HACKERS] [Fwd: SGVLLUG Oracle and Informix on
	Linux]
> > > >        Let's remove the "I don't want to think" utilities like
> > > >{create,destroy}{db,user} and force DBA's to actually use the *proper*
> > > >functions.
> 
> IMHO (actually make that IMVeryHO) This is probably a bad idea... We
> should just update the man pages to detail the SQL code that can be used
> instead of the command.  It doesn't hurt anything/anyone to leave the
> programs as they are...

True.

> ... and can even be helpful to people writing scripts to
> automate management of their servers.

This is already possible with psql. Most of my psql work is done via a
makefile, infact. I tend to put my SQL into a file such as create.sql and
destroy.sql then my project makefile can handle the rest just by having
psql read those files when needed. Sure, I do that for development, but it
would work for maintenance.


Bruce Tong                 |  Got me an office; I'm there late at night.
Systems Programmer         |  Just send me e-mail, maybe I'll write.
Electronic Vision / FITNE  |  
zztong@laxmi.ev.net        |  -- Joe Walsh for the 21st Century



Mon, 27 Jul 1998 17:30:16 -0400 (EDT)
Bruce Tong <zztong@laxmi.ev.net>
Re: [GENERAL] Re: [HACKERS] [Fwd: SGVLLUG Oracle and Informix on
	Linux]
> > > >        Let's remove the "I don't want to think" utilities like
> > > >{create,destroy}{db,user} and force DBA's to actually use the *proper*
> > > >functions.
> 
> IMHO (actually make that IMVeryHO) This is probably a bad idea... We
> should just update the man pages to detail the SQL code that can be used
> instead of the command.  It doesn't hurt anything/anyone to leave the
> programs as they are, and can even be helpful to people writing scripts to
> automate management of their servers.

man pages already updated.

-- 
Bruce Momjian                          |  830 Blythe Avenue
maillist@candle.pha.pa.us              |  Drexel Hill, Pennsylvania 19026
  +  If your life is a hard drive,     |  (610) 353-9879(w)
  +  Christ can be your backup.        |  (610) 853-3000(h)

Tue, 28 Jul 1998 03:11:18 -0400 (EDT)
Bruce Momjian <maillist@candle.pha.pa.us>
Re: [GENERAL] Re: [HACKERS] [Fwd: SGVLLUG Oracle and Informix on
	Linux]