From: | Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us> |
---|---|
To: | Sam Mason <sam(at)samason(dot)me(dot)uk> |
Cc: | pgsql-general(at)postgresql(dot)org |
Subject: | Re: Connect without specifying a database? |
Date: | 2009-04-11 18:25:05 |
Message-ID: | 3121.1239474305@sss.pgh.pa.us |
Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
Thread: | |
Lists: | pgsql-general |
Sam Mason <sam(at)samason(dot)me(dot)uk> writes:
> As others have said; the design of PG is such that it's built to assume
> you're always connected to exactly one database. I'd guess this is an
> artifact from a long time ago when PG didn't have multiple databases.
It's possible that that was true way back in Berkeley prehistory; there
is no one around the project now that would remember (unless maybe Elein
does). But the key points here are that critical catalogs like pg_class
and pg_proc are per-database, which is a good thing for quite a number
of reasons, and PG is sufficiently catalog-driven that it's literally
impossible for the engine to do anything useful without having a set of
those catalogs available. (Offhand, the only user-visible functionality
I can think of that isn't catalog-dependent is the GUC parameters, ie
SET/SHOW; and even within that there are some individual parameters
that can't meaningfully be set without catalog access.)
regards, tom lane
From | Date | Subject | |
---|---|---|---|
Next Message | Gerry Scales | 2009-04-11 19:33:35 | Maximum number of columns in a table |
Previous Message | lists@mgreg.com | 2009-04-11 17:59:10 | Re: Connect without specifying a database? |