Thread: Re: Utility database

> -----Original Message-----
> From: pgsql-hackers-owner@postgresql.org
> [mailto:pgsql-hackers-owner@postgresql.org] On Behalf Of
> Christopher Browne
> Sent: 17 June 2005 19:59
> To: pgsql-hackers@postgresql.org
> Subject: Re: [HACKERS] Utility database
>
> Thus, "sys_shared", "def_share", "user_commons" are all sorts of names
> that suggest that this is some sort of default/shared area.

I like the first. The second and third seem less obvious to me.
'default_shared' should definitely get the point across, though it's a
little long.

Regards, Dave.

Dave Page wrote:

>>Thus, "sys_shared", "def_share", "user_commons" are all sorts of names
>>that suggest that this is some sort of default/shared area.
>>    
>>
>
>I like the first. The second and third seem less obvious to me.
>'default_shared' should definitely get the point across, though it's a
>little long.
>
>
>  
>

It strikes me that these names just might have some significance to 
developers but will have none at all for users. I don't heve a better 
alternative ... maybe because the purpose has been expressed somewhat 
fuzzily.

cheers

andrew

Andrew Dunstan wrote:

>>  
>>
> 
> It strikes me that these names just might have some significance to 
> developers but will have none at all for users. I don't heve a better 
> alternative ... maybe because the purpose has been expressed somewhat 
> fuzzily.

I'd define the purpose like this:

- being a db that's existing reliably right after initdb, unless deleted 
by an ( evil-minded :-) admin.

- contain data for cluster wide system services, e.g. pgAgent schedules, 
configuration for autovacuumV2, profiling data

regards,
Andreas

"Dave Page" <dpage@vale-housing.co.uk> writes:
> I like the first. The second and third seem less obvious to me.
> 'default_shared' should definitely get the point across, though it's a
> little long.

I think "shared" would give the wrong impression to many people ---
nowadays the connotation of that is something that you are exposing
to at least your local network, maybe the entire internet (think
"Windows shares").  I realize that the meaning you had in mind was
"shared among authorized users of this Postgres cluster", but I doubt
that implication will come through to very many newbies.
        regards, tom lane

On Fri, 17 Jun 2005, Andrew Dunstan wrote:

>>> Thus, "sys_shared", "def_share", "user_commons" are all sorts of names
>>> that suggest that this is some sort of default/shared area.
>> 
>> I like the first. The second and third seem less obvious to me.
>> 'default_shared' should definitely get the point across, though it's a
>> little long.
>
> It strikes me that these names just might have some significance to 
> developers but will have none at all for users. I don't heve a better 
> alternative ... maybe because the purpose has been expressed somewhat 
> fuzzily.

It seems that far and away the most common use of this database will be as 
the default database to connect to with any of the client apps. Thus Tom's 
suggestion of "default" makes the most sense to me.

Jon

-- 
Jon Jensen
End Point Corporation
http://www.endpoint.com/