On Sat, Mar 12, 2011 at 5:01 PM, Tom Lane <tgl@sss.pgh.pa.us> wrote:
> The problem with Greg's wording is that it's falsifiable: it is possible
> for someone to modify template0 if they're determined to mess things up.
> So a description like "unmodifiable" is promising too much.
>
Eh, it's possible for someone to make any part of the documentation
wrong if they're determined to mess things up enough. "Empty" is not
even technically correct since it has all the system tables and stuff.
But I think there's a point of diminishing returns where if we try to
come up with something that's technically 100% true it won't help a
user understand the key attributes that make template0 useful. Under
normal usage it has no user objects in it and it is hard to change
that which tries to guarantee that that fact remains true.
--
greg