Re: pg_migrator to /contrib in a later 9.0 beta

On 6 May 2010 20:55, Bruce Momjian <bruce(at)momjian(dot)us> wrote:

> Bruce Momjian wrote:
> > Tom Lane wrote:
> > > "Joshua D. Drake" <jd(at)commandprompt(dot)com> writes:
> > > > On Wed, 2010-05-05 at 20:24 -0400, Robert Haas wrote:
> > > >> I think it will be confusing if we change the name, so I vote to not
> > > >> change the name.
> > >
> > > > Actually, I would vote yes to change the name.
> > >
> > > I lean that way too. If there were no history involved, we'd certainly
> > > prefer pg_upgrade to pg_migrator.
> >
> > Yeah, that was my feeling too. People like "pg_upgrade", or something
> > else? I will add some text like "pg_upgrade (formerly pg_migrator)" in
> > the docs.
>
> OK, seems people like pg_upgrade, but do we call it "pgupgrade" or
> "pg_upgrade"? I don't see consistent naming in /contrib:
>
> pg_buffercache/
> pg_freespacemap/
> pg_standby/
> pg_stat_statements/
> pg_trgm/
> pgbench/
> pgcrypto/
> pgrowlocks/
> pgstattuple/
>
> The original 7.2 name was "pg_upgrade":
>
>
> http://anoncvs.postgresql.org/cvsweb.cgi/pgsql/contrib/pg_upgrade/Attic/
>
> --
>
>
You will call it pg_upgrade. I have spoken.

Thom