From: | Karsten Hilbert <Karsten(dot)Hilbert(at)gmx(dot)net> |
---|---|
To: | pgsql-general(at)postgresql(dot)org |
Subject: | Re: chosing a database name |
Date: | 2005-07-13 19:59:02 |
Message-ID: | 20050713195902.GD2950@merkur.hilbert.loc |
Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
Thread: | |
Lists: | pgsql-general |
On Wed, Jul 13, 2005 at 12:53:15PM -0400, Alvaro Herrera wrote:
> > we are developing GNUmed, a medical practice management
> > application running on PostgreSQL (you want your medical
> > data to be hosted by something reliable, don't you ;-) We
> > are putting out our first release sometime in the next two
> > weeks.
> >
> > The idea is to name the production database "gnumed0.1" for
> > version 0.1 (gnumed0.2 etc for upcoming releases). I do
> > realize the "." may force me to quote the database name in,
> > say, a CREATE DATABASE call.
>
> I doubt you'll have any problems with the tools, but the quoting may
> prove painful. Why not replace the dot with an underscore? gnumed0_1
Good suggestion. I will try to find a name that a) makes the
version tag unambigous and b) does not require quoting.
My main concern, however, was whether the *approach* is
sound, eg using a separate database name per release or IOW
version. One way would be to use the database name "gnumed"
regardless of release, another way would be to use
"gnumedX_Y" for release X.Y. I wonder whether the latter
approach has any drawbacks people might think of regarding
release management etc.
Thanks,
Karsten
--
GPG key ID E4071346 @ wwwkeys.pgp.net
E167 67FD A291 2BEA 73BD 4537 78B9 A9F9 E407 1346
From | Date | Subject | |
---|---|---|---|
Next Message | Karsten Hilbert | 2005-07-13 20:06:51 | Re: chosing a database name |
Previous Message | Joshua D. Drake | 2005-07-13 19:46:32 | Re: Transparent encryption in PostgreSQL? |