| From: | Andreas Pflug <pgadmin(at)pse-consulting(dot)de> |
|---|---|
| To: | Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us> |
| 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 15:38:09 |
| Message-ID: | 42B2EE61.2080305@pse-consulting.de |
| Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
| Thread: | |
| Lists: | pgsql-hackers |
Tom Lane wrote:
> One argument against this is that it'd mean another copy of the system
> catalogs in a standard installation. That's been running three to five
> megabytes over the last few releases. Disk space is pretty cheap these
> days, but we do get occasional complaints from people who wish the
> footprint was smaller.
In this case, a dba would drop anything not neccessary, including
INFORMATION_SCHEMA. We also could provide an initdb switch to omit that
pg_system db (and more non-vital stuff).
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. So the
pg_ prefix should be used, the docs say clearly enough "don't touch pg_%
objects unless you know exactly what you do".
Regards,
Andreas
| From | Date | Subject | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Next Message | Josh Berkus | 2005-06-17 16:18:53 | Re: Autovacuum in the backend |
| Previous Message | Andreas Pflug | 2005-06-17 15:32:47 | Re: Utility database (Was: RE: Autovacuum in the backend) |