From: Michael Simms <grim@argh.demon.co.uk>
To: yucao@falcon.kla-tencor.com
Cc: pgsql-hackers@postgreSQL.org
Subject: Re: [HACKERS] Re: HISTORY for 6.5.2
Date: Tue, 21 Sep 1999 00:20:21 +0100 (BST)
Message-ID: <199909202320.AAA28034@argh.demon.co.uk> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <Pine.SOL.3.96.990920154145.22085A-100000@jedi.kla-tencor.com>
> I think I can safely speak for a newbie and I happen to dislike
> createdb etc as well. I started out with postgreSQL with the
> intention of writing an application-specific CORBA front-end
> to it, so I cared most about the C++ interface. The existence of
> the createdb command confused me for a while, leaving me thinking
> I could do INSERT and SELECT etc from libpq++, but would have
> to resort to UNIX calls to do createdb.
>
> --Yu Cao
>
I would have to say that if you 'started out with theintention of writing
a corba front-and' then I dont think you can really speak for newbies.
When I started using postgresql I had vaguely heard of odbc and I had
a couple of example queries of SQL.
If I had had to go to template1 and create database whatever; and THEN
go use it, I would have been fairly confused.
The way I look at it, it is functionality that is THERE already. If you
remove it, you remove from the overall functionality of postgres. It doesnt
actually gain anything to remove it. Sure it looks a bit neater, but the end
user cares about being able to use it easilly, not if the scripts are
technically pleasing.
I think the problem described above comes from a lack in the documentation,
or a failure to read the relavent documentation. Having more functionality
is good. Removing it is counterproductive.
The arguement that was put forwards of 'if they want scripts they can write
them, let the admins learn and do it themselves' is a bad one IMHO. Is
it really desirable for a dozen people to be forced to write what is
effectively the same script? When the script is already there anyway?
We should be moving towards a lower learning curve to getting a basic
database up and running, not a higher one. Not all the users WANT to
have to write theirown scripts for everything. I know I certainly
dont.
Just my 2p worth
~Michael
Reply instructions:
You may reply publicly to this message via plain-text email
using any one of the following methods:
* Reply to all the recipients using the --to and --cc options:
reply via email
To: pgsql-docs@postgresql.org
Cc: grim@argh.demon.co.uk, yucao@falcon.kla-tencor.com, pgsql-hackers@postgreSQL.org
Subject: Re: [HACKERS] Re: HISTORY for 6.5.2
In-Reply-To: <199909202320.AAA28034@argh.demon.co.uk>
* Save the following mbox file, import it into your mail client,
and reply-to-all from there: mbox
This inbox is served by DDX for PostgreSQL; see mirroring instructions
for how to clone and mirror all data and code used for this inbox