Re: [PATCHES] default database creation with initdb

From: "Dave Page" <dpage(at)vale-housing(dot)co(dot)uk>
To: "Tom Lane" <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us>, "Andreas Pflug" <pgadmin(at)pse-consulting(dot)de>
Cc: "Robert Treat" <xzilla(at)users(dot)sourceforge(dot)net>, "Magnus Hagander" <mha(at)sollentuna(dot)net>, <pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org>
Subject: Re: [PATCHES] default database creation with initdb
Date: 2005-06-20 07:28:02
Message-ID: E7F85A1B5FF8D44C8A1AF6885BC9A0E490E59C@ratbert.vale-housing.co.uk
Views: Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email
Thread:
Lists: pgsql-hackers

> -----Original Message-----
> From: Tom Lane [mailto:tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us]
> Sent: 20 June 2005 03:46
> To: Andreas Pflug
> Cc: Dave Page; Robert Treat; Magnus Hagander;
> pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org
> Subject: Re: [HACKERS] [PATCHES] default database creation
> with initdb
>
> Andreas Pflug <pgadmin(at)pse-consulting(dot)de> writes:
> > Can't tell whether I could find time for reviewing the docs
> the next
> > days (more interesting for feature freeze is having fixed the
> > implementation anyway).
>
> Of the sixty-odd files that mention template1 in current CVS,
> only about
> half are documentation. If you think a patch that patches only initdb
> is enough to get this "feature" in, you are very mistaken ...
> even if we
> were inclined to accept patches that blatantly omit
> documentation, which
> as a rule we do not.

... And rightly so imho :-). I will spend some time on this today.

Regards, Dave.

Browse pgsql-hackers by date

  From Date Subject
Next Message Teodor Sigaev 2005-06-20 08:28:14 Re: Gist Recovery testing
Previous Message Tom Lane 2005-06-20 02:46:03 Re: [PATCHES] default database creation with initdb