Re: Utility database (Was: RE: Autovacuum in the backend)

> I was gradually drifting toward this idea. Do we really need
> the blessing of the postgresql core to make this happen? ISTM
> we don't.

I think not, but I would perhaps make things easier ;-)

> But what if we all just agreed that we would use a common
> database called "pg_addons", and that each tool would install
> thier information into an appropriatly named schema within
> that database; phppgadmin for us, pgadminiii for pgadmin for
> examples. This means that, if you install pgadmin, it
> creates this database and puts its information into its own
> schema. If you then wanted phppgadmin reporting, we'd look
> for this database and, since it exists, we'd just install our
> needed information into a phppgadmin schema within that
> database. Any other addons/tool makers out there that wanted to
> jump on the bandwagon could do so, just by following this
> basic agreement.

Seems reasonable. The only argument agains it vs having it in the
"default" (whatevr it's named) database is that you'll have two more
databases. But with them coming in at 5-6Mb (I think it was), I don't
see that as a big problem.

It has to be documented somewhere though, so "new tool vendors" know how
to create it. You'll get in a lot of trouble if it starts showing up
with different encodings depending on which tool created it, for
example. But that should be easy enough.

//Magnus