From: | Brian Weaver <cmdrclueless(at)gmail(dot)com> |
---|---|
To: | Guillaume Lelarge <guillaume(at)lelarge(dot)info> |
Cc: | "pgsql-admin(at)postgresql(dot)org" <pgsql-admin(at)postgresql(dot)org> |
Subject: | Re: Problems with pg_restore (plpgsql already exists) |
Date: | 2012-02-25 16:18:24 |
Message-ID: | 17919563-C079-438C-9702-5A0806127DFD@gmail.com |
Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
Thread: | |
Lists: | pgsql-admin |
Guillaume,
Thanks for the pointer. Is it just me that finds it the behavior of pg_restore odd? If the default installation since 9.0 has PL/PgSQL installed then why does pg_restore still emit statements to create the language? As a developer by trade it smells like a bug.
-- Brian
Sent from my iPhone
On Feb 25, 2012, at 10:31, Guillaume Lelarge <guillaume(at)lelarge(dot)info> wrote:
> On Fri, 2012-02-24 at 22:12 -0500, Brian Weaver wrote:
>> So when did the installation of PL/PgSQL into all databases become standard
>> operating procedure? It wasn't standard (or at least it didn't choke) on
>> the installation of versions 8.3 and 8.4 that I have used on CentOS 5.
>>
>> Seems like a fairly substantial change. Did I miss it in the release notes?
>>
>
> Since 9.0, it's the third item in the overview list of the release notes
> http://www.postgresql.org/docs/9.0/static/release-9-0.html.
>
>
> --
> Guillaume
> http://blog.guillaume.lelarge.info
> http://www.dalibo.com
>
From | Date | Subject | |
---|---|---|---|
Next Message | Scott Ribe | 2012-02-25 16:23:50 | Re: Problems with pg_restore (plpgsql already exists) |
Previous Message | Guillaume Lelarge | 2012-02-25 15:31:43 | Re: Problems with pg_restore (plpgsql already exists) |