| From: | Stephen Frost <sfrost(at)snowman(dot)net> |
|---|---|
| To: | Simon Riggs <simon(at)2ndQuadrant(dot)com> |
| Cc: | David Rowley <dgrowleyml(at)gmail(dot)com>, PostgreSQL-development <pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org> |
| Subject: | Re: 9.4 Proposal: Initdb creates a single table |
| Date: | 2014-04-23 12:28:22 |
| Message-ID: | 20140423122822.GI2556@tamriel.snowman.net |
| Views: | Whole Thread | Raw Message | Download mbox | Resend email |
| Thread: | |
| Lists: | pgsql-hackers |
* Simon Riggs (simon(at)2ndQuadrant(dot)com) wrote:
> +1 to the idea of an example database, used throughout the docs
> Sounds like a summer of code project.
Agreed. I'll add it to the GSoC ideas page.
> Since we don't have that now, it won't work for 9.4.
None of this is on the table for 9.4 as far as I'm concerned..
> I still like the idea of a database installed by default on initdb, by
> default. Packagers can of course do what they like.
I fail to see the point of adding something that's targetted at novice /
end-users which 90% (yes, it's a random # that I pulled, but it's surely
the majority, at least) of installs won't have.
For my 2c, it'd also be a disservice to our users and to ourselves to
encourage a design that minimizes the database's understanding of the
data and greatly reduces the set of PG's capabilities that can be used.
Thanks,
Stephen
| From | Date | Subject | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Next Message | Heikki Linnakangas | 2014-04-23 12:43:46 | Re: WAL replay bugs |
| Previous Message | Bruce Momjian | 2014-04-23 12:26:02 | Re: pg_upgrade and epoch |