Re: default_language

From: Jeff Davis <pgsql(at)j-davis(dot)com>
To: Simon Riggs <simon(at)2ndQuadrant(dot)com>
Cc: pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org
Subject: Re: default_language
Date: 2010-01-24 21:12:33
Message-ID: 1264367553.29919.293.camel@jdavis
Views: Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email
Thread:
Lists: pgsql-hackers

On Sun, 2010-01-24 at 20:32 +0000, Simon Riggs wrote:
> Or "language_path" so we can tell
> CREATE FUNCTION to try the languages in order? Or better still, try all
> the installed languages that the user has rights to in alphabetic
> order?

What do you mean "try"? It seems a little dangerous to just try to
compile until it doesn't throw an error.

Consider the following program:

len('aaaaaaaaaaaaaa')

Is that ruby or python? It's probably python, because python has a
built-in function "len". However, ruby doesn't know that the "len"
function doesn't exist until runtime -- so perhaps it's just a ruby
program that happens to throw a runtime error?

I would actually lean the other way and say that we shouldn't be
introducing behavior-changing GUCs (except for the special case of
supporting legacy behavior, like standard_conforming_strings). If we
have a default (for DO and CREATE FUNCTION), why not hard-wire the
default to plpgsql?

Regards,
Jeff Davis

In response to

Responses

Browse pgsql-hackers by date

  From Date Subject
Next Message Dimitri Fontaine 2010-01-24 21:20:11 Re: default_language
Previous Message Robert Haas 2010-01-24 21:04:35 Re: further explain changes