On Mar 12, 2011, at 12:01 PM, Tom Lane <t...@sss.pgh.pa.us> wrote: > 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"?
A preposition is something you should try not to end a sentence with. ...Robert -- Sent via pgsql-hackers mailing list (pgsql-hackers@postgresql.org) To make changes to your subscription: http://www.postgresql.org/mailpref/pgsql-hackers
