> > 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.
>
> Well, where a tool chooses to install stuff is the business
> of that tool; there isn't any particular reason to think that
> default would suddenly become a preferred choice, I think.
One of the two main reasons to do this was to have a place for tools to
store persistant data in a standard way. At least it was in Daves mail
;-) Actually, two out of three points were data storage.
It is, as you say, up to the tool where to put it. But we should provide
a standard place for tools to do it, to make it easier for both tool
makers and end users.
> I dislike the name pg_system because it implies that that DB
> is somehow special from the point of view of the system ...
> which is exactly what it would *not* be.
That I can certainly agree with.
//Magnus