From: | Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us> |
---|---|
To: | Greg Stark <gsstark(at)mit(dot)edu> |
Cc: | 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 17:01:09 |
Message-ID: | 25280.1299949269@sss.pgh.pa.us |
Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
Thread: | |
Lists: | pgsql-hackers |
Greg Stark <gsstark(at)mit(dot)edu> writes:
> On Sat, Mar 12, 2011 at 1:59 PM, Bruce Momjian <bruce(at)momjian(dot)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
From | Date | Subject | |
---|---|---|---|
Next Message | Tom Lane | 2011-03-12 17:17:11 | Collations versus user-defined functions |
Previous Message | Bruce Momjian | 2011-03-12 16:57:04 | Re: template0 database comment |