Re: default_language

From: Peter Eisentraut <peter_e(at)gmx(dot)net>
To: Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us>
Cc: Simon Riggs <simon(at)2ndQuadrant(dot)com>, Robert Haas <robertmhaas(at)gmail(dot)com>, pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org
Subject: Re: default_language
Date: 2010-01-26 06:35:27
Message-ID: 1264487727.14033.0.camel@fsopti579.F-Secure.com
Views: Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email
Thread:
Lists: pgsql-hackers

On mån, 2010-01-25 at 20:26 -0500, Tom Lane wrote:
> Simon Riggs <simon(at)2ndQuadrant(dot)com> writes:
> > On Mon, 2010-01-25 at 09:30 -0500, Robert Haas wrote:
> >> +1 for removing default_do_language, too.
>
> > +1 for removing default_do_language OR adding default_language.
>
> > I prefer a hard-wired default of PLpgSQL, so a missing language
> > statement on a DO block is always interpreted the same.
>
> So it seems everyone is okay with the latter? (Remove
> default_do_language in place of a hard-wired default of "plpgsql",
> don't change CREATE FUNCTION's behavior.)

I reserve the option to propose making LANGUAGE SQL the default for
CREATE FUNCTION in 9.1, but it's not something we have to worry about
now. ;-)

In response to

Browse pgsql-hackers by date

  From Date Subject
Next Message Peter Eisentraut 2010-01-26 06:40:04 Re: default_language
Previous Message David Fetter 2010-01-26 05:18:32 Re: default_language