| From: | Albe Laurenz <laurenz(dot)albe(at)wien(dot)gv(dot)at> |
|---|---|
| To: | "Craig Ringer *EXTERN*" <craig(at)2ndquadrant(dot)com>, Simon Riggs *EXTERN* <simon(at)2ndQuadrant(dot)com>, PostgreSQL-development <pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org> |
| Subject: | Re: 9.4 Proposal: Initdb creates a single table |
| Date: | 2014-04-23 07:58:33 |
| Message-ID: | A737B7A37273E048B164557ADEF4A58B17CF2FCB@ntex2010i.host.magwien.gv.at |
| Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
| Thread: | |
| Lists: | pgsql-hackers |
Craig Ringer wrote:
>> Good that you mention that! I have wondered what to do with it.
>> When I first connected to PostgreSQL, I created a sample table, but the
>> senior developer from the other office told me that this is the "postgres"
>> database and that I shouldn't create any objects there.
>>
>> What is it good for? Can I delete it?
>
> A key difference between the "postgres" DB and a default table is that
> the "postgres" DB is very convenient with PostgreSQL's default of
> connecting to a DB of the same name as the user.
I did not seriously want to dispute the value of the "postgres" DB,
I just think that making things easier to understand for the newbie
is *not* its greatest merit.
It is mostly for the convenience of the administrator, right?
Yours,
Laurenz Albe
| From | Date | Subject | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Next Message | Andres Freund | 2014-04-23 08:04:28 | Re: What use case is make_tuple_indirect() supposed to illustrate? |
| Previous Message | Simon Riggs | 2014-04-23 07:50:53 | Re: 9.4 Proposal: Initdb creates a single table |