Re: Utility database (Was: RE: Autovacuum in the backend)

On Saturday 18 June 2005 01:36, Tom Lane wrote:
> "Dave Page" <dpage(at)vale-housing(dot)co(dot)uk> writes:
> > Personally I prefer the first or last, as default implies to me that
> > it's a kindof general use database - which, as Tom points out it could
> > be, however I think it's better to encourage users to only use it as
> > directed by tool providers, and not for general purpose.
>
> If that is what you want then the database should surely not become the
> default connection target for clients.
>
> The proposal I thought was being made was that we separate the
> default-connection-target property from the default-CREATE-DATABASE-source
> property. This business about where tool authors can dump random junk
> of their own devising does not seem to me to fit at all with either of
> those properties. I think what you are really asking for is yet another
> "standard" database named something like TOOLS_ONLY_KEEP_OUT.
>
> But I do not see the argument for having that created by default,
> because any tool that is capable of creating random junk is surely
> capable of creating a database to put it in. Furthermore, if it's
> created by default and completely unused in the default installation,
> lots of DBAs will immediately drop it --- so I entirely fail to see
> the argument that tools could expect it to be there without any
> expenditure of their own effort.
>
> I still say the most that's needed here is some agreement among tool
> authors about a common choice of database name to create if their tool
> is installed.
>

I was gradually drifting toward this idea. Do we really need the blessing of
the postgresql core to make this happen? ISTM we don't. Right now we
(phppgadmin) already tell users that, if they want to make use of our
"reports" functionality, they must create a "phppgadmin" database that also
creates a table to hold the report information; a script is provided to help
ease this setup requirement.

But what if we all just agreed that we would use a common database called
"pg_addons", and that each tool would install thier information into an
appropriatly named schema within that database; phppgadmin for us, pgadminiii
for pgadmin for examples. This means that, if you install pgadmin, it
creates this database and puts its information into its own schema. If you
then wanted phppgadmin reporting, we'd look for this database and, since it
exists, we'd just install our needed information into a phppgadmin schema
within that database. Any other addons/tool makers out there that wanted to
jump on the bandwagon could do so, just by following this basic agreement.

--
Robert Treat
Build A Brighter Lamp :: Linux Apache {middleware} PostgreSQL