Thread: AW: Unhappy thoughts about pg_dump and objects inherite d from template1
AW: Unhappy thoughts about pg_dump and objects inherite d from template1
From
Zeugswetter Andreas SB
Date:
> I like that a lot. Solves the whole problem at a stroke, and even > adds some extra functionality (alternate templates). > > Do we need an actual enforcement mechanism for "don't modify > template0"? > I think we could live without that for now. If you're > worried about it, > one way would be to not allow connections of any sort to template0... > in fact template0 needn't be a real database at all, just a > $PGDATA/base > subdirectory with no pg_database entry. I like this "not really a database" idea. Might even be something for $libdir, no ? Then all that would be needed is a command that creates a database from this location instead of template1. Andreas
Zeugswetter Andreas SB <ZeugswetterA@wien.spardat.at> writes: >> in fact template0 needn't be a real database at all, just a >> $PGDATA/base subdirectory with no pg_database entry. > I like this "not really a database" idea. > Might even be something for $libdir, no ? I thought about that but concluded that it'd just be a way to shoot ourselves in the foot. The postmaster and backend per se don't know where $PGLIB is (offhand, I think only the initdb and createlang scripts do). If we add a dependency on $PGLIB, I think we'll just be setting up a new way to cause configuration mistakes --- and copying the wrong template0 data would be a pretty messy sort of mistake. So keeping the template data under $PGDATA seems like the way to go. However, template0 needn't necessarily be under $PGDATA/base, it could be its own subdirectory of $PGDATA. I'm not sure if that's a better arrangement or not. regards, tom lane