Andreas Pflug <pgadmin@pse-consulting.de> writes:
> I particularly dislike the name "default" for that database, because
> we'd have to expect users to place their user data there regularly (as
> in the public schema), which is just what should *not* happen.
Why not?
Any tools using this database for their own purposes should surely be
smart enough to put all their stuff in a tool-specific schema with
a name chosen to be unlikely to collide with user names. So I see no
reason at all that users couldn't use the database too.
If your intent is to have a database reserved for tool use only, you
can certainly have an agreement among tool authors to create "pg_tools"
or some such if it's not there already. But there are no potential uses
of such a database in the standard distribution, and so I see no reason
to load down the standard distribution by creating a database that may
go completely unused.
regards, tom lane
