Re: template0 database comment

From: Bruce Momjian <bruce(at)momjian(dot)us>
To: Peter Eisentraut <peter_e(at)gmx(dot)net>
Cc: Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us>, Greg Stark <gsstark(at)mit(dot)edu>, Dave Page <dpage(at)pgadmin(dot)org>, PostgreSQL-development <pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org>
Subject: Re: template0 database comment
Date: 2011-03-14 15:18:33
Message-ID: 201103141518.p2EFIXh08673@momjian.us
Views: Whole Thread | Raw Message | Download mbox | Resend email
Thread:
Lists: pgsql-hackers

Peter Eisentraut wrote:
> On l?r, 2011-03-12 at 12:01 -0500, Tom Lane wrote:
> > Shouldn't the "postgres" database get a comment too, while we're at
> > it? Perhaps "default database to connect to"?
>
> That's not actually true, though. Maybe it's the "default database used
> by administration programs"? In practice it might be "some otherwise
> unused database that's occasionally useful". ;-)

Based on previous discussion I have developed a patch to add comments
for 'postgres' and 'template0' databases:

postgres=> \l+
...
postgres | default administrative database
template0 | unmodifiable empty database
template1 | default template database

--
Bruce Momjian <bruce(at)momjian(dot)us> http://momjian.us
EnterpriseDB http://enterprisedb.com

+ It's impossible for everything to be true. +

Attachment Content-Type Size
/rtmp/db.diff text/x-diff 799 bytes

In response to

Browse pgsql-hackers by date

  From Date Subject
Next Message Bruce Momjian 2011-03-14 15:21:15 Re: Macros for time magic values
Previous Message Tom Lane 2011-03-14 15:17:42 Re: Indent authentication overloading