From: Lamar Owen <lamar.owen@wgcr.org>
Organization: Little to None
To: Tom Lane <tgl@sss.pgh.pa.us>
Subject: Re: [HACKERS] Re: HISTORY for 6.5.2
Date: Sat, 18 Sep 1999 17:15:07 -0400
Content-Type: text/plain
Cc: Theo Kramer <theo@flame.co.za>,
	"pgsql-hackers@postgreSQL.org" <pgsql-hackers@postgresql.org>
References: <20970.937688441@sss.pgh.pa.us>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Message-Id: <99091817232103.00581@lowen.wgcr.org>
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit

On Sat, 18 Sep 1999, Tom Lane wrote:
> While we are thinking about this, I wonder if it wouldn't be a good idea
> to separate out the executables that aren't really intended to be
> executed willy-nilly, and put them in a different directory.
> postmaster, postgres, and initdb have no business being in users' PATH
> at all, ever. 

Such as /usr/sbin on a Linux FSSTND-compliant system (such as RedHat).  In
fact, I may just do that with the RPM distribution (after consulting with RedHat
on the issue).  Thomas??  The same goes for the admin commands' man pages --
they should be in section 8 on the typical Linux box.

> to execute.  I suppose such an admin could stick pg_ on the front of the
> symlinks anyway.  But then the program names don't match the
> documentation we supply, which would be confusing.

Well, as things stand, the documentation and the rpm distribution don't match
in other areas -- I personally would have absolutely no problem whatsoever in
doing such a renaming -- hey, I can do such inside the RPM, for that matter,
but I don't want to.  Of course, I would follow whatever the core group decides
-- that is the standard.  I'm just tossing ideas.

Lamar Owen
WGCR Internet Radio