| From: | Pavel Stehule <pavel(dot)stehule(at)gmail(dot)com> |
|---|---|
| To: | Peter Eisentraut <peter_e(at)gmx(dot)net> |
| Cc: | Simon Riggs <simon(at)2ndquadrant(dot)com>, pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org |
| Subject: | Re: default_language |
| Date: | 2010-01-25 07:40:37 |
| Message-ID: | 162867791001242340m7cff5568he130271091400032@mail.gmail.com |
| Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
| Thread: | |
| Lists: | pgsql-hackers |
2010/1/25 Peter Eisentraut <peter_e(at)gmx(dot)net>:
> On mån, 2010-01-25 at 08:09 +0100, Pavel Stehule wrote:
>> 2010/1/25 Peter Eisentraut <peter_e(at)gmx(dot)net>:
>> > On sön, 2010-01-24 at 20:32 +0000, Simon Riggs wrote:
>> >> Why do we have a parameter called "default_do_language" when we don't
>> >> have a parameter called "default_language"?
>> >
>> > According to the SQL standard, the default language for CREATE FUNCTION
>> > is SQL. Should we implement that?
>> >
>>
>> isn't it SQL/PSM ?
>
> No, but if you implement the SQL/PSM part, then those statements become
> part of the "SQL" language.
>
ok.
i think so default_language could be potential risk for compatibility
with standard.
Pavel
>
| From | Date | Subject | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Next Message | Heikki Linnakangas | 2010-01-25 07:52:11 | Re: Re: pgsql: In HS, Startup process sets SIGALRM when waiting for buffer pin. |
| Previous Message | Peter Eisentraut | 2010-01-25 07:20:01 | Re: default_language |