From: | Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us> |
---|---|
To: | Robert Haas <robertmhaas(at)gmail(dot)com> |
Cc: | Dimitri Fontaine <dimitri(at)2ndquadrant(dot)fr>, "David E(dot) Wheeler" <david(at)kineticode(dot)com>, pgsql-hackers Hackers <pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org> |
Subject: | Re: Quick Extensions Question |
Date: | 2011-03-05 18:03:56 |
Message-ID: | 22284.1299348236@sss.pgh.pa.us |
Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
Thread: | |
Lists: | pgsql-hackers |
Robert Haas <robertmhaas(at)gmail(dot)com> writes:
> On Fri, Mar 4, 2011 at 11:19 AM, Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us> wrote:
>> Hmm. Personally I do use createdb/dropdb but never createlang/droplang;
>> but I'm well aware that my usage may not be typical. I'm a bit hesitant
>> to just go and drop these without any warning. I could see deprecating
>> them for a release or two and then dropping them ... but that doesn't
>> solve the problem of what to do with them in 9.1.
> Well, if we're not going remove them altogether, then my vote would be
> to leave them unchanged (i.e. they'll still emit CREATE LANGUAGE) and
> stick a big deprecation warning on them. It isn't necessary to have
> every SQL command available as a standalone executable.
On reflection I think it makes no sense at all to leave those tools
issuing CREATE/DROP LANGUAGE. We want to move people over to managing
languages via extensions, and leaving those tools unchanged will not
serve that goal. However, I don't mind labeling them as deprecated
and not troubling to point out that they could be used for installing
non-PL extensions.
regards, tom lane
From | Date | Subject | |
---|---|---|---|
Next Message | David E. Wheeler | 2011-03-05 18:13:06 | Re: Quick Extensions Question |
Previous Message | Robert Haas | 2011-03-05 18:02:50 | Re: Alpha4 release blockers (was Re: wrapping up this CommitFest) |