On 2019-Nov-08, Tom Lane wrote:
> Alvaro Herrera <alvherre@2ndquadrant.com> writes:
> > Here's a proposed patch.
>
> I don't like this wording much, because "no user-defined objects"
> is not a sufficient specification of what we are talking about.
> You need to also capture the property that none of the system-
> defined objects have been altered. Now that we explicitly support
> things like altering the ACLs of system-defined objects, I do not
> think it's okay to take that part for granted.
Hmm. Maybe we can say "pristine database" and then add this explanation
in a parenthical comment:
This is particularly handy when restoring a
<literal>pg_dump</literal> dump: the dump script should be restored in a
pristine database (one where no user-defined objects exist and where
system objects have not been altered), to ensure that one recreates
the correct contents of the dumped database, without conflicting
with objects that might have been added to
<literal>template1</literal> later on.
--
Álvaro Herrera https://www.2ndQuadrant.com/
PostgreSQL Development, 24x7 Support, Remote DBA, Training & Services
