Re: default_language

On Mon, Jan 25, 2010 at 3:55 AM, Simon Riggs <simon(at)2ndquadrant(dot)com> wrote:
> On Mon, 2010-01-25 at 09:08 +0200, Peter Eisentraut wrote:
>> 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?
>
> So the SQL Standard supports the concept of a default language?
>
> So should we, though giving the user the choice of what the default
> should be, standard or otherwise.

I guess I'll add myself to the list of people who think this is a bad
idea, for all the reasons previously stated. This will turn into
another setting like search_path and standard_conforming_strings that
can break working code if the actual value doesn't match the
anticipated value. I can't figure out why someone would want to use
this even if we had it.

+1 for removing default_do_language, too.

...Robert