Re: Utility database (Was: RE: Autovacuum in the backend)

> -----Original Message-----
> From: Andreas Pflug [mailto:pgadmin(at)pse-consulting(dot)de]
> Sent: 17 June 2005 18:45
> To: Tom Lane
> Cc: Christopher Kings-Lynne; Magnus Hagander; Dave Page; Josh
> Berkus; pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org
> Subject: Re: [HACKERS] Utility database (Was: RE: Autovacuum
> in the backend)
>
> The whole point if it is to have a database that is nearly
> guaranteed to
> be there right from the start, i.e. right after initdb, not
> to need some
> decent script executed (or not) later.

OK, so it sounds like noone is really against this idea. Is anyone going
to object to it being applied if I post a suitable patch?

Assuming not, it seems like the only bone of contention is the name...
So:

pg_system - Implies it's a 'true' PostgreSQL system object, but also
implies 'don't mess with me'
default - Implies a standard 'default' database.
pgdb - Blagged from the Microsoft equivalent, msdb.

Others?

Personally I prefer the first or last, as default implies to me that
it's a kindof general use database - which, as Tom points out it could
be, however I think it's better to encourage users to only use it as
directed by tool providers, and not for general purpose.

Regards, Dave.