Re: Removing binaries

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.

In response to

Responses

Browse pgsql-hackers by date

  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)