Re: Including PL/PgSQL by default

On Thu, 21 Feb 2008 14:14:48 -0500
Andrew Sullivan <ajs(at)crankycanuck(dot)ca> wrote:
> On Thu, Feb 21, 2008 at 10:43:27AM -0800, Joshua D. Drake wrote:
> > often. It is poor implementation and proof that the theoretical
> > security implications that are being brought up in this thread are far
> > from the practical reality.
>
> "We have this hole over here for historical reasons, so let's maybe open a
> new one over there"?

Besides, proof that it would do no extra harm is hardly a strong
argumet for including it. Given how easy it is to add it to any DB
that needs it, I fail to see why we should add it by default.

Personally I would like to see more things removed from PG and have
them added as modules when required. Of course, we would need a proper
module system first.

--
D'Arcy J.M. Cain <darcy(at)druid(dot)net> | Democracy is three wolves
http://www.druid.net/darcy/ | and a sheep voting on
+1 416 425 1212 (DoD#0082) (eNTP) | what's for dinner.