| From: | Peter Eisentraut <peter_e(at)gmx(dot)net> |
|---|---|
| To: | Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us> |
| Cc: | Simon Riggs <simon(at)2ndQuadrant(dot)com>, Robert Haas <robertmhaas(at)gmail(dot)com>, pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org |
| Subject: | Re: default_language |
| Date: | 2010-01-26 06:35:27 |
| Message-ID: | 1264487727.14033.0.camel@fsopti579.F-Secure.com |
| Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
| Thread: | |
| Lists: | pgsql-hackers |
On mån, 2010-01-25 at 20:26 -0500, Tom Lane wrote:
> 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.)
I reserve the option to propose making LANGUAGE SQL the default for
CREATE FUNCTION in 9.1, but it's not something we have to worry about
now. ;-)
| From | Date | Subject | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Next Message | Peter Eisentraut | 2010-01-26 06:40:04 | Re: default_language |
| Previous Message | David Fetter | 2010-01-26 05:18:32 | Re: default_language |