📊 Quantitative test results for language: eng, year: 2023, size: 10K, paranoia level: 1:
🚀 Quantitative testing did not detect new false positives

do'nt confuse psql with pg @EsadCetiner, so psql must remain blocked

@HackingRepo I'm not sure what your trying to say? I'm removing pg, not psql, what does that have to do with this PR?

I see pg is not installed even on Ubuntu, by default and even no APT package exists for it

relunsec@relunsec:~$ pg
pg: command not found
relunsec@relunsec:~$ 

So just we can move the command to PL3 better not just PL2

it even completly removed https://askubuntu.com/questions/1065434/usr-bin-pg-no-longer-present-in-18-04-util-linux-package, so that need to be on PL3 and PL4 only detected

@HackingRepo

I see pg is not installed even on Ubuntu, by default and even no APT package exists for it

That's what I said in my PR description.

So just we can move the command to PL3 better not just PL2

There's no stricter sibling rule at PL-3, and I don't see a reason to even make a PL-3 rule.

No, at PL2 that still can cause FPs @EsadCetiner, it must be also excluded at PL1 and PL2 both not just PL1

simply add also it to unix-shell-fps-pl2.ra file not just unix-shell-fps-pl1.ra

@HackingRepo

No, at PL2 that still can cause FPs, it must be also excluded at PL1 and PL2 both not just PL1

Ok, and? do you have anything to prove this is a big enough problem at PL-2? As far as I can tell this specific false positive doesn't look too common, and considering the fact pg is not very commonly installed it provides low value at level 1.

simply add also it to unix-shell-fps-pl2.ra file not just unix-shell-fps-pl1.ra

As I mentioned before, there is no stricter sibling rule at PL-3 which can detect pg.

I'll say let's first merge this one, and if @HackingRepo wants to run some tests to see the value of moving to major PLs we can reconsider.