Re: [HACKERS] Removing binaries
От | David Steele |
---|---|
Тема | Re: [HACKERS] Removing binaries |
Дата | |
Msg-id | 497558f4-d7f1-4289-275b-30ff31cc65b7@pgmasters.net обсуждение исходный текст |
Ответ на | Re: [HACKERS] Removing binaries ("David G. Johnston" <david.g.johnston@gmail.com>) |
Ответы |
Re: [HACKERS] Removing binaries
|
Список | pgsql-hackers |
On 3/21/17 10:30 AM, David G. Johnston wrote: > On Tue, Mar 21, 2017 at 5:12 AM, Robert Haas <robertmhaas@gmail.com > <mailto:robertmhaas@gmail.com>>wrote: > > > Here's another idea: what if we always created the default database at > initdb time? For example, if I initdb as rhaas, maybe it should > create an "rhaas" database for me, so that this works: > > initdb > pg_ctl start > psql > > 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? > > > I'd be curious to estimate how many users that have difficulties > learning how all this works actually run a manual initdb prior to > beginning their experimentation. I suspect the percentage is fairly low. > > Doing away with "the default database for psql is one named after the > user" seems like it would be more widely applicable. I for one tend to > name things after what they do, or are used for, and thus have never > benefited from this particular design decision. I suppose it would be too big a change to have psql try the username and then fallback to postgres on failure? -- -David david@pgmasters.net
В списке pgsql-hackers по дате отправления: