| From: | Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us> |
|---|---|
| To: | Josh Berkus <josh(at)agliodbs(dot)com> |
| Cc: | pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org, Alvaro Herrera <alvherre(at)commandprompt(dot)com>, "Joshua D(dot) Drake" <jd(at)commandprompt(dot)com>, Greg Sabino Mullane <greg(at)turnstep(dot)com> |
| Subject: | Re: Including PL/PgSQL by default |
| Date: | 2008-02-22 02:33:03 |
| Message-ID: | 20693.1203647583@sss.pgh.pa.us |
| Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
| Thread: | |
| Lists: | pgsql-hackers |
Josh Berkus <josh(at)agliodbs(dot)com> writes:
> On Thursday 21 February 2008 11:36, Tom Lane wrote:
>> Would it satisfy people if plpgsql were in postgres, but neither
>> template DB, after initdb?
> No, the real-world use-case we're trying to satisfy is hosted and/or
> locked-down installations where the developer doesn't have superuser access.
> So putting it in "postgres" wouldn't help with that.
That statement is content-free, Josh. Exactly what are you assuming
this developer *does* have? For example, if he hasn't got createdb
privilege, it will hardly matter to him whether any DBs other than
"postgres" contain plpgsql. If he does have createdb, it's already
possible by default for him to create trusted languages including
plpgsql in his new DB. So it's still 100% unclear to me who we are
catering to.
regards, tom lane
| From | Date | Subject | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Next Message | Tom Lane | 2008-02-22 02:42:39 | Re: Memory leaks on SRF rescan |
| Previous Message | Josh Berkus | 2008-02-22 02:26:24 | Re: Batch update of indexes on data loading |