Robert Haas <robertmh...@gmail.com> writes:
> On Tue, Mar 28, 2017 at 11:44 AM, Peter Eisentraut
> <peter.eisentr...@2ndquadrant.com> wrote:
>> On 3/21/17 08:12, Robert Haas wrote:
>>> 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?
>> Historical, probably. We could ponder changing the way the default
>> database is determined, but I don't want to imagine the breakage coming
>> out of that.
> What do you think would break?
Any configuration depending on the existing default?
The existing behavior here dates from before we had schemas, so that
if users wanted to have private objects they *had* to use separate
databases. Nowadays a schema-per-user within one database makes a lot
more sense for many environments, and we even have the default value
for search_path set up to make that as painless as possible. Still,
it's not a solution for everybody, particularly not installations
that want to keep their users well separated.
Perhaps we could satisfy novices by changing the out-of-the-box
behavior, but provide some way to select the old behavior for
installations that are really depending on it.
regards, tom lane
--
Sent via pgsql-hackers mailing list (pgsql-hackers@postgresql.org)
To make changes to your subscription:
http://www.postgresql.org/mailpref/pgsql-hackers
