With initdb written now in C, we don't need a pg_encoding binary
anymore.

I have removed it from CVS.  There were no mentions of it in the docs.

-- 
  Bruce Momjian                        |  http://candle.pha.pa.us
  pgman@candle.pha.pa.us               |  (610) 359-1001
  +  If your life is a hard drive,     |  13 Roberts Road
  +  Christ can be your backup.        |  Newtown Square, Pennsylvania 19073

Mon, 19 Apr 2004 20:41:18 -0400 (EDT)
Bruce Momjian <pgman@candle.pha.pa.us>
pg_encoding not needed anymore
On Mon, Apr 19, 2004 at 08:41:18PM -0400, Bruce Momjian wrote:
> With initdb written now in C, we don't need a pg_encoding binary
> anymore.

 By  the way,  what  change  the name  of  "initdb" to  "pg_initdb". The
 current  name  is  really  too  common  (like  some  others  things  in
 pgsql/src/bin)

    Karel

-- 
 Karel Zak  <zakkr@zf.jcu.cz>
 http://home.zf.jcu.cz/~zakkr/

Tue, 20 Apr 2004 10:25:58 +0200
Karel Zak <zakkr@zf.jcu.cz>
Re: pg_encoding not needed anymore
Karel Zak wrote:
> On Mon, Apr 19, 2004 at 08:41:18PM -0400, Bruce Momjian wrote:
> > With initdb written now in C, we don't need a pg_encoding binary
> > anymore.
> 
>  By  the way,  what  change  the name  of  "initdb" to  "pg_initdb". The
>  current  name  is  really  too  common  (like  some  others  things  in
>  pgsql/src/bin)

Uh, that would be pretty major.  No one has complained about it in the
past.  I think createuser is much worse.  :-)

-- 
  Bruce Momjian                        |  http://candle.pha.pa.us
  pgman@candle.pha.pa.us               |  (610) 359-1001
  +  If your life is a hard drive,     |  13 Roberts Road
  +  Christ can be your backup.        |  Newtown Square, Pennsylvania 19073

Tue, 20 Apr 2004 08:59:20 -0400 (EDT)
Bruce Momjian <pgman@candle.pha.pa.us>
Re: pg_encoding not needed anymore
On Tue, Apr 20, 2004 at 08:59:20AM -0400, Bruce Momjian wrote:
> Karel Zak wrote:
> > On Mon, Apr 19, 2004 at 08:41:18PM -0400, Bruce Momjian wrote:
> > > With initdb written now in C, we don't need a pg_encoding binary
> > > anymore.
> > 
> >  By  the way,  what  change  the name  of  "initdb" to  "pg_initdb". The
> >  current  name  is  really  too  common  (like  some  others  things  in
> >  pgsql/src/bin)
> 
> Uh, that would be pretty major.  No one has complained about it in the
> past.  I think createuser is much worse.  :-)

 Sure. Maybe is needful wait for some other project like PostgreSQL that
 will use  same clever names... But maybe  we will never see  a problem,
 because the others are less ignorant...

    Karel

-- 
 Karel Zak  <zakkr@zf.jcu.cz>
 http://home.zf.jcu.cz/~zakkr/

Tue, 20 Apr 2004 15:15:00 +0200
Karel Zak <zakkr@zf.jcu.cz>
Re: pg_encoding not needed anymore
Bruce Momjian wrote:

>Karel Zak wrote:
>  
>
>>On Mon, Apr 19, 2004 at 08:41:18PM -0400, Bruce Momjian wrote:
>>    
>>
>>>With initdb written now in C, we don't need a pg_encoding binary
>>>anymore.
>>>      
>>>
>> By  the way,  what  change  the name  of  "initdb" to  "pg_initdb". The
>> current  name  is  really  too  common  (like  some  others  things  in
>> pgsql/src/bin)
>>    
>>
>
>Uh, that would be pretty major.  No one has complained about it in the
>past.  I think createuser is much worse.  :-)
>
>  
>
Agreed. Actually, the big problem with the name "initdb" is that the 
name is misleading, and newbies often get confused by it. You are 
preparing a data store for many databases, not a single database.  But I 
think it is far too sanctified by history to change now, just as Ken 
Thompson now wishes he had put an 'e' on the end of 'creat' but can't go 
back and fix it. Maybe we should think about a symlink/hardlink to use a 
better name.

cheers

andrew

Tue, 20 Apr 2004 09:57:10 -0400
Andrew Dunstan <andrew@dunslane.net>
Re: pg_encoding not needed anymore
Andrew Dunstan wrote:
> >past.  I think createuser is much worse.  :-)
> >
> >  
> >
> Agreed. Actually, the big problem with the name "initdb" is that the 
> name is misleading, and newbies often get confused by it. You are 
> preparing a data store for many databases, not a single database.  But I 
> think it is far too sanctified by history to change now, just as Ken 
> Thompson now wishes he had put an 'e' on the end of 'creat' but can't go 
> back and fix it. Maybe we should think about a symlink/hardlink to use a 
> better name.

Yea, initcluster would have been better, but cluster confuses with
CLUSTER, just like database schema confuses with CREATE SCHEMA.

-- 
  Bruce Momjian                        |  http://candle.pha.pa.us
  pgman@candle.pha.pa.us               |  (610) 359-1001
  +  If your life is a hard drive,     |  13 Roberts Road
  +  Christ can be your backup.        |  Newtown Square, Pennsylvania 19073

Tue, 20 Apr 2004 10:32:10 -0400 (EDT)
Bruce Momjian <pgman@candle.pha.pa.us>
Re: pg_encoding not needed anymore
On Tue, 20 Apr 2004, Bruce Momjian wrote:

> Andrew Dunstan wrote:
> > >past.  I think createuser is much worse.  :-)
> > >
> > >  
> > >
> > Agreed. Actually, the big problem with the name "initdb" is that the 
> > name is misleading, and newbies often get confused by it. You are 
> > preparing a data store for many databases, not a single database.  But I 
> > think it is far too sanctified by history to change now, just as Ken 
> > Thompson now wishes he had put an 'e' on the end of 'creat' but can't go 
> > back and fix it. Maybe we should think about a symlink/hardlink to use a 
> > better name.
> 
> Yea, initcluster would have been better, but cluster confuses with
> CLUSTER, just like database schema confuses with CREATE SCHEMA.

Maybe initpg or pg_init or something like that?


Tue, 20 Apr 2004 11:37:58 -0600 (MDT)
"scott.marlowe" <scott.marlowe@ihs.com>
Re: pg_encoding not needed anymore

> g a data store for many databases, not a single database.  But I think 
> it is far too sanctified by history to change now, just as Ken 
> Thompson now wishes he had put an 'e' on the end of 'creat' but can't 
> go back and fix it. Maybe we should think about a symlink/hardlink to 
> use a better name.


initcatalog?

>
> cheers
>
> andrew
>
> ---------------------------(end of broadcast)---------------------------
> TIP 5: Have you checked our extensive FAQ?
>
>               http://www.postgresql.org/docs/faqs/FAQ.html



-- 
Command Prompt, Inc., home of Mammoth PostgreSQL - S/ODBC and S/JDBC
Postgresql support, programming shared hosting and dedicated hosting.
+1-503-667-4564 - jd@commandprompt.com - http://www.commandprompt.com
PostgreSQL Replicator -- production quality replication for PostgreSQL


Tue, 20 Apr 2004 13:46:32 -0700
"Joshua D. Drake" <jd@commandprompt.com>
Re: pg_encoding not needed anymore
Joshua D. Drake wrote:

>
>> g a data store for many databases, not a single database.  But I 
>> think it is far too sanctified by history to change now, just as Ken 
>> Thompson now wishes he had put an 'e' on the end of 'creat' but can't 
>> go back and fix it. Maybe we should think about a symlink/hardlink to 
>> use a better name.
>
>
>
> initcatalog?
>

initpgstore ... we can play the name game if people are serious :-)

cheers

andrew

Tue, 20 Apr 2004 16:54:25 -0400
Andrew Dunstan <andrew@dunslane.net>
Re: pg_encoding not needed anymore
On Tuesday 20 April 2004 16:54, Andrew Dunstan wrote:
> Joshua D. Drake wrote:
> >> g a data store for many databases, not a single database.  But I
> >> think it is far too sanctified by history to change now, just as Ken
> >> Thompson now wishes he had put an 'e' on the end of 'creat' but can't
> >> go back and fix it. Maybe we should think about a symlink/hardlink to
> >> use a better name.
> >
> > initcatalog?
>
> initpgstore ... we can play the name game if people are serious :-)
>

ooh... we havent done this is a while.... hows about....

initpgdata? 

dovetails nicely with PGDATA... at least until that gets deprecated ;-)

Robert Treat
-- 
Build A Brighter Lamp :: Linux Apache {middleware} PostgreSQL

Thu, 22 Apr 2004 23:50:13 -0400
Robert Treat <xzilla@users.sourceforge.net>
Re: pg_encoding not needed anymore