| From: | Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us> |
|---|---|
| To: | Andreas Pflug <pgadmin(at)pse-consulting(dot)de> |
| Cc: | Christopher Kings-Lynne <chriskl(at)familyhealth(dot)com(dot)au>, Magnus Hagander <mha(at)sollentuna(dot)net>, Dave Page <dpage(at)vale-housing(dot)co(dot)uk>, Josh Berkus <josh(at)agliodbs(dot)com>, pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org |
| Subject: | Re: Utility database (Was: RE: Autovacuum in the backend) |
| Date: | 2005-06-17 16:22:32 |
| Message-ID: | 22532.1119025352@sss.pgh.pa.us |
| Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
| Thread: | |
| Lists: | pgsql-hackers |
Andreas Pflug <pgadmin(at)pse-consulting(dot)de> writes:
> I particularly dislike the name "default" for that database, because
> we'd have to expect users to place their user data there regularly (as
> in the public schema), which is just what should *not* happen.
Why not?
Any tools using this database for their own purposes should surely be
smart enough to put all their stuff in a tool-specific schema with
a name chosen to be unlikely to collide with user names. So I see no
reason at all that users couldn't use the database too.
If your intent is to have a database reserved for tool use only, you
can certainly have an agreement among tool authors to create "pg_tools"
or some such if it's not there already. But there are no potential uses
of such a database in the standard distribution, and so I see no reason
to load down the standard distribution by creating a database that may
go completely unused.
regards, tom lane
| From | Date | Subject | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Next Message | Andreas Pflug | 2005-06-17 17:45:22 | Re: Utility database (Was: RE: Autovacuum in the backend) |
| Previous Message | Matthew T. O'Connor | 2005-06-17 16:21:44 | Re: Autovacuum in the backend |