Greg Stark <gsst...@mit.edu> writes:
> On Sat, Mar 12, 2011 at 1:59 PM, Bruce Momjian <br...@momjian.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"?
regards, tom lane
--
Sent via pgsql-hackers mailing list (pgsql-hackers@postgresql.org)
To make changes to your subscription:
http://www.postgresql.org/mailpref/pgsql-hackers
