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

Magnus Hagander wrote:
>>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.

I just posted a patch for an initdb time default db creation, with
public creation rights removed. I'm still unhappy about that name
(though I understand Tom, psql localhost default looks good), but I
consider the default db a system db, so it wouldn't shown up in pgAdmin
unless explicitely enabled and users would be kept out.

Regards,
Andreas