Re: [HACKERS] Optional postgres database not so optional in 8.1

2005-12-02 Thread Andrew Dunstan
I never saw a followup to this. Is someone working on a ping protocol extension, or should we revert pg_ctl to using template1 on the ground that it does a poor man's ping anyway? cheers andrew Andrew Dunstan wrote: Tom Lane wrote: Andrew Dunstan [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes: I now

Re: [HACKERS] Optional postgres database not so optional in 8.1

2005-11-18 Thread Andrew Dunstan
I now notice that pg_ctl -w start fails if the postgres db is missing. I am not sure that changing pg_ctl to use this rather than template1 was a good thing, and it can't be overridden. I suggest we revert that particular change - it seems to me to confer little to no benefit, unlike the

Re: [HACKERS] Optional postgres database not so optional in 8.1

2005-11-18 Thread Andrew Dunstan
Tom Lane wrote: Andrew Dunstan [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes: I now notice that pg_ctl -w start fails if the postgres db is missing. I am not sure that changing pg_ctl to use this rather than template1 was a good thing, and it can't be overridden. I suggest we revert that particular change -

Re: [HACKERS] Optional postgres database not so optional in 8.1

2005-11-18 Thread Tom Lane
Andrew Dunstan [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes: I now notice that pg_ctl -w start fails if the postgres db is missing. I am not sure that changing pg_ctl to use this rather than template1 was a good thing, and it can't be overridden. I suggest we revert that particular change - it seems to me to

Re: [HACKERS] Optional postgres database not so optional in 8.1

2005-11-17 Thread Martijn van Oosterhout
On Fri, Nov 18, 2005 at 12:01:31AM +1100, John Hansen wrote: On a fresh installation of postgrsql 8.1 if you drop the 'postgres' database, psql, createdb, etc. no longer works. psql -l; ignores -dtemplate1, and createdb doesn't have such an option. What distribution? I've never seen

Re: [HACKERS] Optional postgres database not so optional in 8.1

2005-11-17 Thread Michael Paesold
Martijn van Oosterhout wrote: What distribution? I've never seen this postgres database you speak of. It certainly not on any systems I've used. It's new in 8.1 and is used as the default connection database for createdb, etc. Best Regards, Michael Paesold ---(end

Re: [HACKERS] Optional postgres database not so optional in 8.1

2005-11-17 Thread Andrew Dunstan
Martijn van Oosterhout wrote: On Fri, Nov 18, 2005 at 12:01:31AM +1100, John Hansen wrote: On a fresh installation of postgrsql 8.1if you drop the 'postgres' database, psql, createdb, etc. no longer works. psql -l; ignores -dtemplate1, and createdb doesn't have such an option.

Re: [HACKERS] Optional postgres database not so optional in 8.1

2005-11-17 Thread Jaime Casanova
On 11/17/05, Martijn van Oosterhout kleptog@svana.org wrote: On Fri, Nov 18, 2005 at 12:01:31AM +1100, John Hansen wrote: On a fresh installation of postgrsql 8.1 if you drop the 'postgres' database, psql, createdb, etc. no longer works. psql -l; ignores -dtemplate1, and createdb

Re: [HACKERS] Optional postgres database not so optional in 8.1

2005-11-17 Thread Tom Lane
John Hansen [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes: Maybe it should fallback to template1 if the postgres database doesn't exist? [ shrug... ] template1 can be dropped, too. More to the point, if they fall back to connecting to template1, then we lose the very thing we wanted to gain, which is that there

Re: [HACKERS] Optional postgres database not so optional in 8.1

2005-11-17 Thread Joshua D. Drake
John Hansen wrote: On a fresh installation of postgrsql 8.1if you drop the 'postgres' database, psql, createdb, etc. no longer works. psql -l; ignores -dtemplate1, and createdb doesn't have such an option. I can't test createdb here but on the psql... what happens if you just: psql

Re: [HACKERS] Optional postgres database not so optional in 8.1

2005-11-17 Thread Michael Paesold
Joshua D. Drake wrote: psql -l; ignores -dtemplate1, and createdb doesn't have such an option. I can't test createdb here but on the psql... what happens if you just: psql -Upostgres template1? It's the '-l' option (list all databases) that does not honor the database given on the command

Re: [HACKERS] Optional postgres database not so optional in 8.1

2005-11-17 Thread Tom Lane
Michael Paesold [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes: It's the '-l' option (list all databases) that does not honor the database given on the command line. This does not work, if the postgres database is dropped in 8.1: psql -l template1 It does seem a bit inconsistent that psql wouldn't connect to the

Re: [HACKERS] Optional postgres database not so optional in 8.1

2005-11-17 Thread Andrew Dunstan
Tom Lane wrote: Michael Paesold [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes: It's the '-l' option (list all databases) that does not honor the database given on the command line. This does not work, if the postgres database is dropped in 8.1: psql -l template1 It does seem a bit

Re: [HACKERS] Optional postgres database not so optional in 8.1

2005-11-17 Thread Philip Yarra
On Fri, 18 Nov 2005 05:29 am, Tom Lane wrote: It does seem a bit inconsistent that psql wouldn't connect to the specified database in order to do -l, if one is specified. Anyone want to look and see if it's easy to change? It also breaks the ability to psql -l against older installations: e.g.

Re: [HACKERS] Optional postgres database not so optional in 8.1

2005-11-17 Thread Andrew Dunstan
Andrew Dunstan wrote: It does seem a bit inconsistent that psql wouldn't connect to the specified database in order to do -l, if one is specified. Anyone want to look and see if it's easy to change? options.action == ACT_LIST_DB options.dbname == NULL ? postgres :