From: | "David G(dot) Johnston" <david(dot)g(dot)johnston(at)gmail(dot)com> |
---|---|
To: | Robert Haas <robertmhaas(at)gmail(dot)com> |
Cc: | David Steele <david(at)pgmasters(dot)net>, Jan de Visser <jan(at)de-visser(dot)net>, "pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org" <pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org>, Magnus Hagander <magnus(at)hagander(dot)net> |
Subject: | Re: Removing binaries |
Date: | 2017-03-21 14:30:11 |
Message-ID: | CAKFQuwbEJ7as6Cjqx0EfDfQ7+emGHqBtnA+s0r4cW5iBNNUEvQ@mail.gmail.com |
Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
Thread: | |
Lists: | pgsql-hackers |
On Tue, Mar 21, 2017 at 5:12 AM, Robert Haas <robertmhaas(at)gmail(dot)com> wrote:
>
> Here's another idea: what if we always created the default database at
> initdb time? For example, if I initdb as rhaas, maybe it should
> create an "rhaas" database for me, so that this works:
>
> initdb
> pg_ctl start
> psql
>
> I think a big part of the usability problem here comes from the fact
> that the default database for connections is based on the username,
> but the default databases that get created have fixed names (postgres,
> template1). So the default configuration is one where you can't
> connect. Why the heck do we do it that way?
>
>
I'd be curious to estimate how many users that have difficulties learning
how all this works actually run a manual initdb prior to beginning their
experimentation. I suspect the percentage is fairly low.
Doing away with "the default database for psql is one named after the user"
seems like it would be more widely applicable. I for one tend to name
things after what they do, or are used for, and thus have never benefited
from this particular design decision.
David J.
From | Date | Subject | |
---|---|---|---|
Next Message | Robert Haas | 2017-03-21 14:39:04 | Re: Partition-wise join for join between (declaratively) partitioned tables |
Previous Message | Alvaro Herrera | 2017-03-21 14:21:14 | Re: Patch: Write Amplification Reduction Method (WARM) |