| From: | Andreas Pflug <pgadmin(at)pse-consulting(dot)de> |
|---|---|
| To: | Christopher Kings-Lynne <chriskl(at)familyhealth(dot)com(dot)au> |
| Cc: | 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, Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us> |
| Subject: | Re: Utility database (Was: RE: Autovacuum in the backend) |
| Date: | 2005-06-17 13:29:12 |
| Message-ID: | 42B2D028.1080300@pse-consulting.de |
| Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
| Thread: | |
| Lists: | pgsql-hackers |
Christopher Kings-Lynne wrote:
>> Probably, though the create db issue is a good reason not to use
>> template1.
>
>
> Create db issue?
CREATE TABLE (implicitely using TEMPLATE template1) often fails because
template1 has connections exceeding the current one.
>
>> So may I propose to have a pg_system database created by initdb, as a
>> copy from template1 in 8.1?
>
>
> But then dbas will block off access to that db, or drop it and we're
> back to square one...
Sure, some dbas also might like to drop INFORMATION_SCHEMA, or modify
system catalogs or worse to bend the system as they like, effectively
disabling common tools. But if we create this db with initdb, I'd
expect to find it in the vast majority of installations. If not, we
could fall back to template1 for admin tools.
Regards,
Andreas
| From | Date | Subject | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Next Message | Nicolai Tufar | 2005-06-17 13:38:18 | Re: DTrace Probes? |
| Previous Message | Dave Page | 2005-06-17 13:17:47 | Re: Utility database (Was: RE: Autovacuum in the backend) |