Quick Links

Re: default_language

From:	Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us>
To:	Simon Riggs <simon(at)2ndQuadrant(dot)com>
Cc:	Robert Haas <robertmhaas(at)gmail(dot)com>, Peter Eisentraut <peter_e(at)gmx(dot)net>, pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org
Subject:	Re: default_language
Date:	2010-01-26 01:26:14
Message-ID:	12679.1264469174@sss.pgh.pa.us
Views:	Raw Message \| Whole Thread \| Download mbox \| Resend email
Thread:
Lists:	pgsql-hackers

Simon Riggs <simon(at)2ndQuadrant(dot)com> writes:
> On Mon, 2010-01-25 at 09:30 -0500, Robert Haas wrote:
>> +1 for removing default_do_language, too.

> +1 for removing default_do_language OR adding default_language.

> I prefer a hard-wired default of PLpgSQL, so a missing language
> statement on a DO block is always interpreted the same.

So it seems everyone is okay with the latter? (Remove
default_do_language in place of a hard-wired default of "plpgsql",
don't change CREATE FUNCTION's behavior.)

regards, tom lane

In response to

Re: default_language at 2010-01-25 14:40:29 from Simon Riggs

Responses

Re: default_language at 2010-01-26 04:59:59 from Jeff Davis
Re: default_language at 2010-01-26 05:18:32 from David Fetter
Re: default_language at 2010-01-26 06:35:27 from Peter Eisentraut
Re: default_language at 2010-01-26 06:40:04 from Peter Eisentraut

Browse pgsql-hackers by date

	From	Date	Subject
Next Message	Andrew Dunstan	2010-01-26 01:34:39	Re: Possible changes to pg_restore
Previous Message	Tom Lane	2010-01-26 01:22:31	Re: About "Our CLUSTER implementation is pessimal" patch