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

Tom Lane wrote:

> One argument against this is that it'd mean another copy of the system
> catalogs in a standard installation.  That's been running three to five
> megabytes over the last few releases.  Disk space is pretty cheap these
> days, but we do get occasional complaints from people who wish the
> footprint was smaller.

In this case, a dba would drop anything not neccessary, including 
INFORMATION_SCHEMA. We also could provide an initdb switch to omit that 
pg_system db (and more non-vital stuff).

I particularly dislike the name "default" for that database, because 
we'd have to expect users to place their user data there regularly (as 
in the public schema), which is just what should *not* happen. So the 
pg_ prefix should be used, the docs say clearly enough "don't touch pg_% 
objects unless you know exactly what you do".

Regards,
Andreas