| From: | "lists(at)mgreg(dot)com" <lists(at)mgreg(dot)com> |
|---|---|
| To: | Sam Mason <sam(at)samason(dot)me(dot)uk> |
| Cc: | pgsql-general(at)postgresql(dot)org |
| Subject: | Re: Connect without specifying a database? |
| Date: | 2009-04-11 17:59:10 |
| Message-ID: | 0D70885B-55E4-4D9F-8182-F55146C3A10F@mgreg.com |
| Views: | Whole Thread | Raw Message | Download mbox | Resend email |
| Thread: | |
| Lists: | pgsql-general |
On Apr 11, 2009, at 1:49 PM, Sam Mason wrote:
>
> As others have said; the design of PG is such that it's built to
> assume
> you're always connected to exactly one database. I'd guess this is an
> artifact from a long time ago when PG didn't have multiple databases.
>
> --
> Sam http://samason.me.uk/
Yes, I believe that this gets at the heart of some of the issue. I
think there is some confusion on both sides. Basically, I was under
the impression that PG had some overarching database server to which
one could connect without needing to specify a database. While, yes,
this might be "unremarkable", it is still an extra constraint for no
*obvious* reason. I could understand if it was an *option* based on
the need for security, etc., but the strict enforcement of this
paradigm seems a bit dated. Perhaps the docs make reference as to
why, and I simply haven't come across it yet.
That said, "psql" provides me with what I need for now.
Thanks,
Michael
| From | Date | Subject | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Next Message | Tom Lane | 2009-04-11 18:25:05 | Re: Connect without specifying a database? |
| Previous Message | Sam Mason | 2009-04-11 17:49:37 | Re: Connect without specifying a database? |