> > But then dbas will block off access to that db, or drop it
> and we're
> > back to square one...
>
> Don't see why they would. Let's review what we have here:
>
> Database Function(s)
>
> template0 guaranteed-virgin template for CREATE DATABASE
>
> template1 installation-default template for
> CREATE DATABASE
> default database to connect to for clients
>
> (I don't think I'm missing anything --- can anyone think of a
> purpose I have forgotten?)
>
> If we split template1's functions as
>
> template1 installation-default template for
> CREATE DATABASE
>
> default default database to connect to
> for clients
>
> then it becomes fairly reasonable for DBAs to block access to
> template1 after they've installed any installation-default
> stuff they want in it.
> There isn't any particular reason to block access to
> "default", unless you don't want to have a shared database at
> all --- in which case you'd probably just drop it.
It wouldn't just be "default to connect to", it would also be "location
for tools to store cluster-wide information". Which makes pg_system a
slightly more reasonable name in that context, but i certainly have no
problem with "default" as a name.
> 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.
As long as you can drop it without hosing your system completely, that
can always be a solution for the ppl who are that space constrained.
//Magnus