Re: template0 database comment

On Mar 12, 2011, at 12:01 PM, Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us> wrote:
> Greg Stark <gsstark(at)mit(dot)edu> writes:
>> On Sat, Mar 12, 2011 at 1:59 PM, Bruce Momjian <bruce(at)momjian(dot)us> wrote:
>>> OK, funny guys. ;-) Can someone give me the right text. Obviously I
>>> don' know what template0 is used for either. Is it pg_dumpall perhaps?
>
>> template0: unmodifiable pristine empty database
>> template1: default template for new databases
>
> Yeah, I think that the right way to approach this is to have initdb
> comment *both* of those databases. I don't like that specific wording
> for template0 though. Maybe
>
> template0: unmodified copy of original template1 database
> template1: default template for new databases
>
> The problem with Greg's wording is that it's falsifiable: it is possible
> for someone to modify template0 if they're determined to mess things up.
> So a description like "unmodifiable" is promising too much.
>
> Shouldn't the "postgres" database get a comment too, while we're at it?
> Perhaps "default database to connect to"?

A preposition is something you should try not to end a sentence with.

...Robert