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)

Well, since this is not on the immediate agenda I'll leave it open for a
while, but you see the leading vote getter.

In addition I'll add a configure option --with-pragmatic-scrappy which
will prevent the installation of the scripts altogether.

        -Peter



Wed, 13 Oct 1999 14:10:46 +0200 (MET DST)
Peter Eisentraut <e99re41@csd.uu.se>
Scripts again
> 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 can go for pg_createdb too.

> 
> Well, since this is not on the immediate agenda I'll leave it open for a
> while, but you see the leading vote getter.
> 
> In addition I'll add a configure option --with-pragmatic-scrappy which
> will prevent the installation of the scripts altogether.

I like that.

-- 
  Bruce Momjian                        |  http://www.op.net/~candle
  maillist@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

Wed, 13 Oct 1999 08:52:16 -0400 (EDT)
Bruce Momjian <maillist@candle.pha.pa.us>
Re: [HACKERS] Scripts again

On 13-Oct-99 Peter Eisentraut wrote:
> Okay, I have the following voting results:
> 
> 2 for pgcreatedb, pgdropdb, pgcreateuser, pgdropuser (Bruce, me)
> 1 for pg_createdb, pg_dropdb, etc. (Sergio K.)

        Me too ...
Another method is 
pgadm createdb .... 

> 1/2 for pgadduser, etc., or sth. like that (Marc)
> 1/2 for leave as is (Thomas)
> 1 for drop altogether (Marc)
> 
> Well, since this is not on the immediate agenda I'll leave it open for a
> while, but you see the leading vote getter.
> 
> In addition I'll add a configure option --with-pragmatic-scrappy which
> will prevent the installation of the scripts altogether.
> 
>         -Peter
> 
> 
> 
> ************

---
Dmitry Samersoff, dms@wplus.net, ICQ:3161705
http://devnull.wplus.net
* There will come soft rains ...

Wed, 13 Oct 1999 17:17:56 +0400 (MSD)
Dmitry Samersoff <dms@wplus.net>
RE: [HACKERS] Scripts again
On Wed, 13 Oct 1999, Bruce Momjian wrote:

> > 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 can go for pg_createdb too.
> 
> > 
> > Well, since this is not on the immediate agenda I'll leave it open for a
> > while, but you see the leading vote getter.
> > 
> > In addition I'll add a configure option --with-pragmatic-scrappy which
> > will prevent the installation of the scripts altogether.
> 
> I like that.

Okay, who invited this guy? :)  How about drop'ng them unlessthe configure
with a --with-hand-holding option? or even --disable-sql? :)

Marc G. Fournier                   ICQ#7615664               IRC Nick: Scrappy
Systems Administrator @ hub.org 
primary: scrappy@hub.org           secondary: scrappy@{freebsd|postgresql}.org 


Wed, 13 Oct 1999 10:36:52 -0300 (ADT)
The Hermit Hacker <scrappy@hub.org>
Re: [HACKERS] Scripts again
On Wed, 13 Oct 1999, Peter Eisentraut wrote:

> 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?  :)

Vince.
-- 
==========================================================================
Vince Vielhaber -- KA8CSH   email: vev@michvhf.com   flame-mail: /dev/null
  # include <std/disclaimers.h>       Have you seen http://www.pop4.net?
        Online Campground Directory    http://www.camping-usa.com
       Online Giftshop Superstore    http://www.cloudninegifts.com
==========================================================================




Wed, 13 Oct 1999 09:51:42 -0400 (EDT)
Vince Vielhaber <vev@michvhf.com>
Re: [HACKERS] Scripts again
On Oct 13, The Hermit Hacker mentioned:

> On Wed, 13 Oct 1999, Bruce Momjian wrote:
> 
> > > 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 can go for pg_createdb too.
> > 
> > > 
> > > Well, since this is not on the immediate agenda I'll leave it open for a
> > > while, but you see the leading vote getter.
> > > 
> > > In addition I'll add a configure option --with-pragmatic-scrappy which
> > > will prevent the installation of the scripts altogether.
> > 
> > I like that.
> 
> Okay, who invited this guy? :)  How about drop'ng them unlessthe configure
> with a --with-hand-holding option? or even --disable-sql? :)

I like that even better. Watch out, it might become a standard option in
autoconf soon.


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


Wed, 13 Oct 1999 19:11:09 +0200 (CEST)
Peter Eisentraut <peter_e@gmx.net>
Re: [HACKERS] Scripts again
On Oct 13, Vince Vielhaber mentioned:

> On Wed, 13 Oct 1999, Peter Eisentraut wrote:
> 
> > 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...)

I suppose that would subtract another half vote from the underscore
option. With Bruce's defection and my own change of mind we now stand at

0     pgblah
3 1/2 pg_blah (Bruce, Sergio K, Dmitry S, -1/2 Thomas, myself)
1/2   pgadddb (Marc)
1 1/2 as is   (Thomas, Vince)
1     none    (Marc)

Hmm, I guess that does it. pg_createdb and symlinks for one release with
warnings for deprecated forms.

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?

	-Peter

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



Wed, 13 Oct 1999 19:27:50 +0200 (CEST)
Peter Eisentraut <peter_e@gmx.net>
Re: [HACKERS] Scripts again
Peter Eisentraut wrote:

> 0     pgblah
> 3 1/2 pg_blah (Bruce, Sergio K, Dmitry S, -1/2 Thomas, myself)
> 1/2   pgadddb (Marc)
> 1 1/2 as is   (Thomas, Vince)
> 1     none    (Marc)
>
> Hmm, I guess that does it. pg_createdb and symlinks for one release with
> warnings for deprecated forms.

    Make the whole thing configurable and anyone should be happy.

        --pg_admin_script_prefix={pg_|pg|*empty*|*whatever_you_prefer*}
        --pg_admin_script_install={yes|no}

    It's not a joke. Someone might want to have his user  account
    to  have  access  to  his  production and test DB at the same
    time. So he could setup his PATH to  both  installations  bin
    directories  and  configure  the  test  DB to use a different
    default  PGPORT   and   different   script   prefixes.   Then
    pg_createdb    would    contact   another   postmaster   than
    devel_createdb would do. Well, the  installed  binaries  like
    psql would need some configurable prefix too then.


Jan

--

#======================================================================#
# It's easier to get forgiveness for being wrong than for being right. #
# Let's break this rule - forgive me.                                  #
#========================================= wieck@debis.com (Jan Wieck) #



Wed, 13 Oct 1999 23:32:20 +0200 (MET DST)
wieck@debis.com (Jan Wieck)
Re: [HACKERS] Scripts again
On Wed, 13 Oct 1999, Jan Wieck wrote:

>     Make the whole thing configurable and anyone should be happy.
> 
>         --pg_admin_script_prefix={pg_|pg|*empty*|*whatever_you_prefer*}
>         --pg_admin_script_install={yes|no}

Way initially I was suggesting
	--enable-scripts=old|new|both|none (default new)
but Bruce found *that* too complicated.

I can see your point here, accessing different db installations, but I
think that is a highly specialized case (and you should be using psql
anyway, but that seems to be a culture issue).

But the scripts have no concept of default ports etc., that's in libpq. So
you can use pg_createdb for whatever your default install is, and
pg_createdb -p foo for your alternate installation. Or you could alias
this or something.

(Btw., anyone else think a /etc/services entry is better than a hardwired
default port, at least on the libpq side of things? Of course, I'm not
sure about Windows here.)

> 
>     It's not a joke. Someone might want to have his user  account
>     to  have  access  to  his  production and test DB at the same
>     time. So he could setup his PATH to  both  installations  bin
>     directories  and  configure  the  test  DB to use a different
>     default  PGPORT   and   different   script   prefixes.   Then
>     pg_createdb    would    contact   another   postmaster   than
>     devel_createdb would do. Well, the  installed  binaries  like
>     psql would need some configurable prefix too then.
> 
> 
> Jan
> 


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


Thu, 14 Oct 1999 13:10:20 +0200 (MET DST)
Peter Eisentraut <e99re41@DoCS.UU.SE>
Re: [HACKERS] Scripts again
On Thu, 14 Oct 1999, Peter Eisentraut wrote:

> (Btw., anyone else think a /etc/services entry is better than a hardwired
> default port, at least on the libpq side of things? Of course, I'm not
> sure about Windows here.)

Would require root intervention to install, which is something that we've
always avoided, and discouraged...

Marc G. Fournier                   ICQ#7615664               IRC Nick: Scrappy
Systems Administrator @ hub.org 
primary: scrappy@hub.org           secondary: scrappy@{freebsd|postgresql}.org 


Thu, 14 Oct 1999 10:17:53 -0300 (ADT)
The Hermit Hacker <scrappy@hub.org>
Re: [HACKERS] Scripts again
At 6:17 AM -0700 10/14/99, The Hermit Hacker wrote:
>On Thu, 14 Oct 1999, Peter Eisentraut wrote:
>
>> (Btw., anyone else think a /etc/services entry is better than a hardwired
>> default port, at least on the libpq side of things? Of course, I'm not
>> sure about Windows here.)
>
>Would require root intervention to install, which is something that we've
>always avoided, and discouraged...

Wouldn't it make it harder to build test installations running on the same
machine as a production server?

Signature failed Preliminary Design Review.
Feasibility of a new signature is currently being evaluated.
h.b.hotz@jpl.nasa.gov, or hbhotz@oxy.edu

Thu, 14 Oct 1999 08:47:30 -0700
"Henry B. Hotz" <hotz@jpl.nasa.gov>
Re: [HACKERS] Scripts again
> > > 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

Fri, 15 Oct 1999 05:24:27 +0000
Thomas Lockhart <lockhart@alumni.caltech.edu>
Re: [HACKERS] Scripts again
Topic dropped.

But users should be made aware that all createdb does is call psql and the
create database SQL statement, so they see how it fits together. But I
think I have to agree with your general point here.

	-Peter

On Fri, 15 Oct 1999, Thomas Lockhart wrote:

> > > > 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
> 
> 

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


Fri, 15 Oct 1999 11:36:35 +0200 (MET DST)
Peter Eisentraut <e99re41@DoCS.UU.SE>
Re: [HACKERS] Scripts again
Peter Eisentraut wrote:
> 
> Topic dropped.
> 
> But users should be made aware that all createdb does is call psql and the
> create database SQL statement, so they see how it fits together. But I
> think I have to agree with your general point here.
> 

Maybe it should just echo out the commands given through psql, unless 
some switch (like -s for silent) is given ?

-----------------
Hannu

Fri, 15 Oct 1999 13:20:15 +0300
Hannu Krosing <hannu@trust.ee>
Re: [HACKERS] Scripts again
> > 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 ;)

    Real  programmers  don't  use a database at all. If they can,
    they even avoid using a filesystem or any other  help  of  an
    OS,  because  they  love  to know exactly where their data is
    left.


Jan

--

#======================================================================#
# It's easier to get forgiveness for being wrong than for being right. #
# Let's break this rule - forgive me.                                  #
#========================================= wieck@debis.com (Jan Wieck) #



Fri, 15 Oct 1999 12:28:27 +0200 (MET DST)
wieck@debis.com (Jan Wieck)
Re: [HACKERS] Scripts again
On Fri, 15 Oct 1999, Jan Wieck wrote:

> > > 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 ;)
> 
>     Real  programmers  don't  use a database at all. If they can,
>     they even avoid using a filesystem or any other  help  of  an
>     OS,  because  they  love  to know exactly where their data is
>     left.

You use an OS?

Okay, people, let's cut the crap. It wasn't my idea. Someone asked about
it and Bruce said something to the effect that this was something that you
wanted to do anyway. So I asked around for a vote and got a result. I
couldn't guess that this could cause so much heartbreak with some people.
Let's forget about it and let people use whatever tool (with whatever
name) they damn well want.

	-Peter

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


Fri, 15 Oct 1999 12:49:27 +0200 (MET DST)
Peter Eisentraut <e99re41@DoCS.UU.SE>
Re: [HACKERS] Scripts again
On Fri, 15 Oct 1999, Thomas Lockhart wrote:

> > > > 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.

Hear hear!!

> > 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 ;)

Hrmmmmm...there's a thought, but doesn't that sort of negate your above?
:)

Marc G. Fournier                   ICQ#7615664               IRC Nick: Scrappy
Systems Administrator @ hub.org 
primary: scrappy@hub.org           secondary: scrappy@{freebsd|postgresql}.org 


Fri, 15 Oct 1999 09:07:49 -0300 (ADT)
The Hermit Hacker <scrappy@hub.org>
Re: [HACKERS] Scripts again