On 3/21/17 10:30 AM, David G. Johnston wrote:
On Tue, Mar 21, 2017 at 5:12 AM, Robert Haas <robertmh...@gmail.com
Here's another idea: what if we always created the default database at
initdb time? For example, if I initdb as rhaas, maybe it should
create an "rhaas" database for me, so that this works:
I think a big part of the usability problem here comes from the fact
that the default database for connections is based on the username,
but the default databases that get created have fixed names (postgres,
template1). So the default configuration is one where you can't
connect. Why the heck do we do it that way?
I'd be curious to estimate how many users that have difficulties
learning how all this works actually run a manual initdb prior to
beginning their experimentation. I suspect the percentage is fairly low.
Doing away with "the default database for psql is one named after the
user" seems like it would be more widely applicable. I for one tend to
name things after what they do, or are used for, and thus have never
benefited from this particular design decision.
I suppose it would be too big a change to have psql try the username and
then fallback to postgres on failure?
Sent via pgsql-hackers mailing list (firstname.lastname@example.org)
To make changes to your subscription: