On Sat, Jun 18, 2005 at 09:27:49 -0400,
Robert Treat <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> On Saturday 18 June 2005 04:55, Andreas Pflug wrote:
> > Magnus Hagander wrote:
> > > Umm. Tiny item, but your comment still refers to the database as
> > > pg_system ;-)
> > >
>
> What is the purpose of this database? A generalized, shared resource for tool
> makers and add-on packages to store information in PostgreSQL, or a working
> database that is usable (and to be used) out of the box for new users? I
> really don't think we want the latter... I can see users connecting via psql
> and then playing around with different add/create type statements. It is all
> too common a question from newbies... "does postgresql have a default
> database to get started with?" They'll see this database and begin creating
> schema and using this as thier main database, and I think we ought to avoid
> that. If people don't like pg_system, pg_addons seem like a much safer name
> to go with imho.
I believe the intention is that things that need to connect to some
database to do their work (e.g. psql -l, createuser) will connect to that
database. createdb will still connect to template1, but now will be less
likely to have a conflict with another user being connected to template1
at the same time. I didn't check the patch to see if the behavior of the
psql -l and createuser were changed or if just the initdb behavior was
changed.
I don't think it will be a big deal if people put stuff in that database.
---------------------------(end of broadcast)---------------------------
TIP 5: Have you checked our extensive FAQ?
http://www.postgresql.org/docs/faq
