Tom Lane wrote:
Andreas Pflug <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
I particularly dislike the name "default" for that database, because
we'd have to expect users to place their user data there regularly (as
in the public schema), which is just what should *not* happen.
Why not?
Any tools using this database for their own purposes should surely be
smart enough to put all their stuff in a tool-specific schema with
a name chosen to be unlikely to collide with user names. So I see no
reason at all that users couldn't use the database too.
If your intent is to have a database reserved for tool use only, you
can certainly have an agreement among tool authors to create "pg_tools"
or some such if it's not there already. But there are no potential uses
of such a database in the standard distribution, and so I see no reason
to load down the standard distribution by creating a database that may
go completely unused.
The whole point if it is to have a database that is nearly guaranteed to
be there right from the start, i.e. right after initdb, not to need some
decent script executed (or not) later.
Regards,
Andreas
---------------------------(end of broadcast)---------------------------
TIP 4: Don't 'kill -9' the postmaster
