| From: | Peter Eisentraut <peter(dot)eisentraut(at)2ndquadrant(dot)com> |
|---|---|
| To: | Robert Haas <robertmhaas(at)gmail(dot)com>, David Steele <david(at)pgmasters(dot)net> |
| Cc: | Jan de Visser <jan(at)de-visser(dot)net>, "pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org" <pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org>, Magnus Hagander <magnus(at)hagander(dot)net> |
| Subject: | Re: Removing binaries |
| Date: | 2017-03-28 15:44:28 |
| Message-ID: | 5d485411-6396-2f5e-ceac-132a586a64e8@2ndquadrant.com |
| Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
| Thread: | |
| Lists: | pgsql-hackers |
On 3/21/17 08:12, Robert Haas wrote:
> I think a big part of the usability problem here comes from the fact
> that the default database for connections is based on the username,
> but the default databases that get created have fixed names (postgres,
> template1). So the default configuration is one where you can't
> connect. Why the heck do we do it that way?
Historical, probably. We could ponder changing the way the default
database is determined, but I don't want to imagine the breakage coming
out of that.
Some time ago I changed my environment to PGDATABASE=postgres by
default, and my experience has been much smoother. Of course, if we did
that, then people will store a bunch of junk in their postgres database.
But maybe that's not a problem. Maybe just tolerate the use of the
postgres database by default, like using the public schema.
--
Peter Eisentraut http://www.2ndQuadrant.com/
PostgreSQL Development, 24x7 Support, Remote DBA, Training & Services
| From | Date | Subject | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Next Message | Robert Haas | 2017-03-28 15:50:35 | Re: O(1) DSM handle operations |
| Previous Message | Peter Eisentraut | 2017-03-28 15:39:03 | Re: Monitoring roles patch |