On Tue, Mar 28, 2017 at 6:44 PM, Robert Haas <robertmh...@gmail.com> wrote:
> On Tue, Mar 28, 2017 at 12:18 PM, Tom Lane <t...@sss.pgh.pa.us> wrote: > > 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. > > Hmm. I guess that would mean that the same connection string would > mean something different depending on how you configured this > behavior, which does not sound like a good idea. But why not go the > other way and just create the default database by default, either in > addition to or instead of the postgres database? I mean, most people > probably do this: > > initdb > pg_ctl start > createdb > I would argue that only a very small minority does that. The majority does one of: yum install postgresql setup-postgresql <can't remember the switch offhand, but the one that calls initdb for them> systemctl start postgresql or apt-get install postgresql (which auto-initdb's and autostarts) or double-clicks graphical installer on windows (which auto-initdb's and autostarts) I would bet each one of those have at least one and probably more than one order of magnitude more users than ever call initdb or pg_ctl manually. -- Magnus Hagander Me: http://www.hagander.net/ Work: http://www.redpill-linpro.com/
