Tom Lane wrote:
> 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.
The whole point if it is to have a database that is nearly guaranteed to
be there right from the start, i.e. right after initdb, not to need some
decent script executed (or not) later.
Regards,
Andreas
