Re: template0 database comment

From: Peter Eisentraut <peter_e(at)gmx(dot)net>
To: Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us>
Cc: Greg Stark <gsstark(at)mit(dot)edu>, Bruce Momjian <bruce(at)momjian(dot)us>, Dave Page <dpage(at)pgadmin(dot)org>, PostgreSQL-development <pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org>
Subject: Re: template0 database comment
Date: 2011-03-12 20:10:21
Message-ID: 1299960621.21000.2.camel@vanquo.pezone.net
Views: Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email
Thread:
Lists: pgsql-hackers

On lör, 2011-03-12 at 12:01 -0500, Tom Lane wrote:
> Shouldn't the "postgres" database get a comment too, while we're at
> it? Perhaps "default database to connect to"?

That's not actually true, though. Maybe it's the "default database used
by administration programs"? In practice it might be "some otherwise
unused database that's occasionally useful". ;-)

In response to

Responses

Browse pgsql-hackers by date

  From Date Subject
Next Message Peter Eisentraut 2011-03-12 20:23:33 Re: Collations versus user-defined functions
Previous Message Tom Lane 2011-03-12 19:46:19 Re: Collations versus user-defined functions