Re: [HACKERS] [PATCHES] default database creation with initdb

2005-06-21 Thread Michael Paesold
Tom Lane wrote: Another point is that Dave added code to pg_dumpall to not dump the postgres database. This seems mistaken to me, so I did not include it in the applied patch: if someone is doing real work in postgres then they'll be pretty annoyed if it's not backed up. But perhaps the

Re: [HACKERS] [PATCHES] default database creation with initdb

2005-06-21 Thread Robert Treat
On Tuesday 21 June 2005 00:12, Tom Lane wrote: Dave Page dpage@vale-housing.co.uk writes: OK, new patch posted to -patches that updates all the utilities as well. If I read the code correctly, the database name will be hardwired to postgres regardless of the default super user name correct?

Re: [HACKERS] [PATCHES] default database creation with initdb

2005-06-21 Thread Dave Page
-Original Message- From: Robert Treat [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Sent: 21 June 2005 08:10 To: Tom Lane Cc: Dave Page; Andrew Dunstan; Andreas Pflug; Magnus Hagander; pgsql-hackers@postgresql.org Subject: Re: [HACKERS] [PATCHES] default database creation with initdb On Tuesday

Re: [HACKERS] [PATCHES] default database creation with initdb

2005-06-21 Thread Christopher Kings-Lynne
Yes - that's intentional so that pgAdmin/phpPgAdmin et al. can reasonably expect it to be there. Problem is, how the hell do I know it's there before I connect? Chris ---(end of broadcast)--- TIP 3: if posting/reading through Usenet, please

Re: [HACKERS] [PATCHES] default database creation with initdb

2005-06-21 Thread Dave Page
-Original Message- From: Christopher Kings-Lynne [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Sent: 21 June 2005 08:57 To: Dave Page Cc: Robert Treat; Tom Lane; Andrew Dunstan; Andreas Pflug; Magnus Hagander; pgsql-hackers@postgresql.org Subject: Re: [HACKERS] [PATCHES] default database creation

Re: [HACKERS] [PATCHES] default database creation with initdb

2005-06-21 Thread Dave Page
-Original Message- From: Tom Lane [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Sent: 21 June 2005 05:13 To: Dave Page Cc: Andrew Dunstan; Andreas Pflug; Robert Treat; Magnus Hagander; pgsql-hackers@postgresql.org Subject: Re: [HACKERS] [PATCHES] default database creation with initdb Dave

Re: [HACKERS] [PATCHES] default database creation with initdb

2005-06-21 Thread Matthew T. O'Connor
Tom Lane wrote: One thing that neither Dave nor I wanted to touch is pg_autovacuum. If that gets integrated into the backend by feature freeze then the question is moot, but if it doesn't then we'll have to decide whether autovac should preferentially connect to template1 or postgres. Neither

Re: [HACKERS] [PATCHES] default database creation with initdb

2005-06-21 Thread Robert Treat
: Re: [HACKERS] [PATCHES] default database creation with initdb Yes - that's intentional so that pgAdmin/phpPgAdmin et al. can reasonably expect it to be there. Problem is, how the hell do I know it's there before I connect? Well obviously you don't (any more than you know that template1

Re: [HACKERS] [PATCHES] default database creation with initdb

2005-06-21 Thread Tom Lane
Dave Page dpage@vale-housing.co.uk writes: Another point is that Dave added code to pg_dumpall to not dump the postgres database. My reading of that code was that I merely stopped it dumping the CREATE DATABASE statement (and the ACL) for the database, /not/ the actual contents - in the same

Re: [HACKERS] [PATCHES] default database creation with initdb

2005-06-21 Thread Tom Lane
Robert Treat [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes: You know, since we don't maintain static connections (http is our friend) connecting to template1 really isn't a problem for phppgadmin users. At least I can't remember anyone ever having complained about it. Sure you have: people have complained about

Re: [HACKERS] [PATCHES] default database creation with initdb

2005-06-21 Thread Andrew Dunstan
Tom Lane wrote: Robert Treat [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes: You know, since we don't maintain static connections (http is our friend) connecting to template1 really isn't a problem for phppgadmin users. At least I can't remember anyone ever having complained about it. Sure you have:

Re: [HACKERS] [PATCHES] default database creation with initdb

2005-06-21 Thread Robert Treat
On Tuesday 21 June 2005 10:04, Tom Lane wrote: Robert Treat [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes: You know, since we don't maintain static connections (http is our friend) connecting to template1 really isn't a problem for phppgadmin users. At least I can't remember anyone ever having complained about

Re: [HACKERS] [PATCHES] default database creation with initdb

2005-06-20 Thread Andrew Dunstan
Andreas Pflug wrote: Tom Lane wrote: Andreas Pflug [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes: Can't tell whether I could find time for reviewing the docs the next days (more interesting for feature freeze is having fixed the implementation anyway). Of the sixty-odd files that mention template1 in

Re: [HACKERS] [PATCHES] default database creation with initdb

2005-06-20 Thread Andreas Pflug
Andrew Dunstan wrote: The decision which files should be changed must be taken. e.g. createdb, dropdb will use template1 hardcoded. Is it acceptable that those tools fail if the postgres database isn't present any more? How about template1 as a fallback? Fallback is a fine idea,

Re: [HACKERS] [PATCHES] default database creation with initdb

2005-06-20 Thread Andrew Dunstan
Dave Page wrote: That's what I'm working on atm, and given Tom's previous comment about small-footprint users not wanting an extra 5/6MB on the size of a new cluster, I'm leaving most things using template1 and mainly just updating docs and examples. 'postgres' can then be dropped with no ill

Re: [HACKERS] [PATCHES] default database creation with initdb

2005-06-20 Thread Dave Page
-Original Message- From: Andrew Dunstan [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Sent: 20 June 2005 10:41 To: Dave Page Cc: Andreas Pflug; Tom Lane; Robert Treat; Magnus Hagander; pgsql-hackers@postgresql.org Subject: Re: [HACKERS] [PATCHES] default database creation with initdb Dave

Re: [HACKERS] [PATCHES] default database creation with initdb

2005-06-20 Thread Tom Lane
Andrew Dunstan [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes: Dave Page wrote: That's what I'm working on atm, and given Tom's previous comment about small-footprint users not wanting an extra 5/6MB on the size of a new cluster, I'm leaving most things using template1 and mainly just updating docs and examples.

Re: [HACKERS] [PATCHES] default database creation with initdb

2005-06-20 Thread Tom Lane
Andreas Pflug [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes: Fallback is a fine idea, but this brings up another problem I'm currently facing: how to identify the problem the connection has from libpq? If the problem is a wrong password, we certainly don't want to try again. I browsed the sources over and over,

Re: [HACKERS] [PATCHES] default database creation with initdb

2005-06-20 Thread Andreas Pflug
Tom Lane wrote: Andreas Pflug [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes: Fallback is a fine idea, but this brings up another problem I'm currently facing: how to identify the problem the connection has from libpq? If the problem is a wrong password, we certainly don't want to try again. I browsed the sources

Re: [HACKERS] [PATCHES] default database creation with initdb

2005-06-20 Thread Tom Lane
Andreas Pflug [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes: Tom Lane wrote: If it's a server-side failure it should have a SQLSTATE code. Specifically, I'm talking about no pg_hba.conf entry for , ERRCODE_INVALID_AUTHORIZATION_SPECIFICATION Ident authentication failed.. (both server sice) Ditto. Do you

Re: [HACKERS] [PATCHES] default database creation with initdb

2005-06-20 Thread Dave Page
-Original Message- From: Tom Lane [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Sent: 20 June 2005 14:19 To: Andrew Dunstan Cc: Dave Page; Andreas Pflug; Robert Treat; Magnus Hagander; pgsql-hackers@postgresql.org Subject: Re: [HACKERS] [PATCHES] default database creation with initdb I don't

Re: [HACKERS] [PATCHES] default database creation with initdb

2005-06-20 Thread Andreas Pflug
Tom Lane wrote: Andreas Pflug [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes: Tom Lane wrote: If it's a server-side failure it should have a SQLSTATE code. Specifically, I'm talking about no pg_hba.conf entry for , ERRCODE_INVALID_AUTHORIZATION_SPECIFICATION Ident authentication failed.. (both

Re: [HACKERS] [PATCHES] default database creation with initdb

2005-06-20 Thread Tom Lane
Dave Page dpage@vale-housing.co.uk writes: I don't see that much of a problem with having createdb etc. hardwire postgres instead of template1 as the db-to-connect-to. OK, new patch posted to -patches that updates all the utilities as well. I'm going to apply this this evening (ie, before

Re: [HACKERS] [PATCHES] default database creation with initdb

2005-06-20 Thread Tom Lane
Dave Page dpage@vale-housing.co.uk writes: OK, new patch posted to -patches that updates all the utilities as well. Applied. One thing that neither Dave nor I wanted to touch is pg_autovacuum. If that gets integrated into the backend by feature freeze then the question is moot, but if it

Re: [HACKERS] [PATCHES] default database creation with initdb

2005-06-20 Thread Dave Page
-Original Message- From: Tom Lane [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Sent: 20 June 2005 03:46 To: Andreas Pflug Cc: Dave Page; Robert Treat; Magnus Hagander; pgsql-hackers@postgresql.org Subject: Re: [HACKERS] [PATCHES] default database creation with initdb Andreas Pflug [EMAIL

Re: [HACKERS] [PATCHES] default database creation with initdb

2005-06-20 Thread Andreas Pflug
Tom Lane wrote: Andreas Pflug [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes: Can't tell whether I could find time for reviewing the docs the next days (more interesting for feature freeze is having fixed the implementation anyway). Of the sixty-odd files that mention template1 in current CVS, only about half

Re: [HACKERS] [PATCHES] default database creation with initdb

2005-06-20 Thread Dave Page
-Original Message- From: Andreas Pflug [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Sent: 20 June 2005 10:14 To: Tom Lane Cc: Dave Page; Robert Treat; Magnus Hagander; pgsql-hackers@postgresql.org Subject: Re: [HACKERS] [PATCHES] default database creation with initdb Tom Lane wrote: Andreas

Re: [HACKERS] [PATCHES] default database creation with initdb

2005-06-19 Thread Thomas F. O'Connell
What about just calling the new database postgres by default? For true newbies, the first thing that happens if you try just running psql with no arguments is that you discover there's no database named postgres. For most first-time users, I suspect the postgres user is the super-user and

Re: [HACKERS] [PATCHES] default database creation with initdb

2005-06-19 Thread Josh Berkus
Thomas, What about just calling the new database postgres by default? Hey, works for me. A great idea really. H except ... on BSD platforms, due to history with Ports, the superuser is pgsql. Fortunately, the BSDs only account for a small minority of new users, so we could just

Re: [HACKERS] [PATCHES] default database creation with initdb

2005-06-19 Thread Dave Page
-Original Message- From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] on behalf of Andreas Pflug Sent: Sun 6/19/2005 12:23 AM To: Tom Lane Cc: Robert Treat; Magnus Hagander; pgsql-hackers@postgresql.org Subject: Re: [HACKERS] [PATCHES] default database creation with initdb This contradicts my intention to have

Re: [HACKERS] [PATCHES] default database creation with initdb

2005-06-19 Thread Andreas Pflug
Dave Page wrote: Whether or not users should write to the default db is another issue altogether, and one that I'd rather not see causing this idea to be rejected or get delayed past freeze. +1 If 'default' is writeable, then so what if users use it? It won't stop pgAdmin from working,

Re: [HACKERS] [PATCHES] default database creation with initdb

2005-06-19 Thread Tom Lane
Josh Berkus josh@agliodbs.com writes: What about just calling the new database postgres by default? Hey, works for me. A great idea really. Yeah, that seems like a pretty good compromise to me too. I was thinking last night that we'd end up with documentation statements like you connect to

Re: [HACKERS] [PATCHES] default database creation with initdb

2005-06-19 Thread Tom Lane
Andreas Pflug [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes: Can't tell whether I could find time for reviewing the docs the next days (more interesting for feature freeze is having fixed the implementation anyway). Of the sixty-odd files that mention template1 in current CVS, only about half are documentation.

Re: [HACKERS] [PATCHES] default database creation with initdb

2005-06-18 Thread Tom Lane
[ redirected back to hackers, since it seems this is far from a finished discussion ] Robert Treat [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes: What is the purpose of this database? A generalized, shared resource for tool makers and add-on packages to store information in PostgreSQL, or a working database

Re: [HACKERS] [PATCHES] default database creation with initdb

2005-06-18 Thread Tino Wildenhain
Am Samstag, den 18.06.2005, 10:12 -0400 schrieb Tom Lane: [ redirected back to hackers, since it seems this is far from a finished discussion ] ... pg_addons or pg_tools or something like that seems like a fine name *for the purpose of a tools-only database* ... but that is only one of the

Re: [HACKERS] [PATCHES] default database creation with initdb

2005-06-18 Thread Andreas Pflug
Tom Lane wrote: [ redirected back to hackers, since it seems this is far from a finished discussion ] Robert Treat [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes: What is the purpose of this database? A generalized, shared resource for tool makers and add-on packages to store information in PostgreSQL, or a