From: | Peter Eisentraut <peter_e(at)gmx(dot)net> |
---|---|
To: | Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us> |
Cc: | pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org, Joe Conway <mail(at)joeconway(dot)com> |
Subject: | Re: Attention PL authors: want to be listed in template table? |
Date: | 2005-09-06 17:51:24 |
Message-ID: | 200509061951.24585.peter_e@gmx.net |
Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
Thread: | |
Lists: | pgsql-hackers |
Tom Lane wrote:
> I don't see it as an exception list. The direction I see for this is
> that the parameters to CREATE LANGUAGE are obsolete and will
> eventually be removed altogether, with "CREATE LANGUAGE foo" using an
> existing template as the only recommended way to do it.
So your proposal is to enable a new language by doing:
1. register a template
2. activate template using CREATE LANGUAGE (which would copy it to
pg_language)
How is this different from
1. register language in pg_language without privileges
2. activate language by granting privileges
This already works and uses only well-known concepts.
> > Why don't we just put all PLs that we
> > know of into pg_language to begin with, revoke the permissions, and
> > just let CREATE LANGUAGE fail when the dump is restored?
>
> To do that we'd have to force an initdb, in which case we might as
> well add the proposed pltemplate catalog and have done with it.
I don't have a strong opinion on initdb, but a difference would be that
this solution would not *require* an initdb but only offer the
improvement if initdb were done while continuing to work as before
without initdb.
--
Peter Eisentraut
http://developer.postgresql.org/~petere/
From | Date | Subject | |
---|---|---|---|
Next Message | Tom Lane | 2005-09-06 17:51:25 | Re: Mysteriously lost values in nodes |
Previous Message | Tom Lane | 2005-09-06 17:34:47 | Re: Attention PL authors: want to be listed in template table? |