> > But then dbas will block off access to that db, or drop it > and we're > > back to square one... > > Don't see why they would. Let's review what we have here: > > Database Function(s) > > template0 guaranteed-virgin template for CREATE DATABASE > > template1 installation-default template for > CREATE DATABASE > default database to connect to for clients > > (I don't think I'm missing anything --- can anyone think of a > purpose I have forgotten?) > > If we split template1's functions as > > template1 installation-default template for > CREATE DATABASE > > default default database to connect to > for clients > > then it becomes fairly reasonable for DBAs to block access to > template1 after they've installed any installation-default > stuff they want in it. > There isn't any particular reason to block access to > "default", unless you don't want to have a shared database at > all --- in which case you'd probably just drop it.
It wouldn't just be "default to connect to", it would also be "location for tools to store cluster-wide information". Which makes pg_system a slightly more reasonable name in that context, but i certainly have no problem with "default" as a name. > One argument against this is that it'd mean another copy of > the system catalogs in a standard installation. That's been > running three to five megabytes over the last few releases. > Disk space is pretty cheap these days, but we do get > occasional complaints from people who wish the footprint was smaller. As long as you can drop it without hosing your system completely, that can always be a solution for the ppl who are that space constrained. //Magnus ---------------------------(end of broadcast)--------------------------- TIP 4: Don't 'kill -9' the postmaster
