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

"Dave Page" <dpage@vale-housing.co.uk> writes:
> Personally I prefer the first or last, as default implies to me that
> it's a kindof general use database - which, as Tom points out it could
> be, however I think it's better to encourage users to only use it as
> directed by tool providers, and not for general purpose.

If that is what you want then the database should surely not become the
default connection target for clients.

The proposal I thought was being made was that we separate the
default-connection-target property from the default-CREATE-DATABASE-source
property.  This business about where tool authors can dump random junk
of their own devising does not seem to me to fit at all with either of
those properties.  I think what you are really asking for is yet another
"standard" database named something like TOOLS_ONLY_KEEP_OUT.

But I do not see the argument for having that created by default,
because any tool that is capable of creating random junk is surely
capable of creating a database to put it in.  Furthermore, if it's
created by default and completely unused in the default installation,
lots of DBAs will immediately drop it --- so I entirely fail to see
the argument that tools could expect it to be there without any
expenditure of their own effort.

I still say the most that's needed here is some agreement among tool
authors about a common choice of database name to create if their tool
is installed.
        regards, tom lane