From: | Robert Treat <xzilla(at)users(dot)sourceforge(dot)net> |
---|---|
To: | Andreas Pflug <pgadmin(at)pse-consulting(dot)de> |
Cc: | Magnus Hagander <mha(at)sollentuna(dot)net>, PostgreSQL-patches <pgsql-patches(at)postgresql(dot)org> |
Subject: | Re: default database creation with initdb |
Date: | 2005-06-18 13:27:49 |
Message-ID: | 200506180927.50411.xzilla@users.sourceforge.net |
Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
Thread: | |
Lists: | pgsql-hackers pgsql-patches |
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.
--
Robert Treat
Build A Brighter Lamp :: Linux Apache {middleware} PostgreSQL
From | Date | Subject | |
---|---|---|---|
Next Message | Michael Fuhr | 2005-06-18 13:31:11 | Re: Returning Composite Types from C functions |
Previous Message | Tom Lane | 2005-06-18 13:26:50 | Re: LGPL |
From | Date | Subject | |
---|---|---|---|
Next Message | Tom Lane | 2005-06-18 13:33:19 | Re: default database creation with initdb |
Previous Message | Andreas Pflug | 2005-06-18 08:55:21 | Re: default database creation with initdb |