> -----Original Message----- > From: Andreas Pflug [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] > Sent: 17 June 2005 18:45 > To: Tom Lane > Cc: Christopher Kings-Lynne; Magnus Hagander; Dave Page; Josh > Berkus; pgsql-hackers@postgresql.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. ---------------------------(end of broadcast)--------------------------- TIP 8: explain analyze is your friend
