Re: Including PL/PgSQL by default

From: Josh Berkus <josh(at)agliodbs(dot)com>
To: pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org
Cc: Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us>, Alvaro Herrera <alvherre(at)commandprompt(dot)com>, "Joshua D(dot) Drake" <jd(at)commandprompt(dot)com>, Greg Sabino Mullane <greg(at)turnstep(dot)com>
Subject: Re: Including PL/PgSQL by default
Date: 2008-02-22 02:24:35
Message-ID: 200802211824.35720.josh@agliodbs.com
Views: Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email
Thread:
Lists: pgsql-hackers

On Thursday 21 February 2008 11:36, Tom Lane wrote:
> Would it satisfy people if plpgsql were in postgres, but neither
> template DB, after initdb?  T

No, the real-world use-case we're trying to satisfy is hosted and/or
locked-down installations where the developer doesn't have superuser access.
So putting it in "postgres" wouldn't help with that.

--
Josh Berkus
PostgreSQL @ Sun
San Francisco

In response to

Responses

Browse pgsql-hackers by date

  From Date Subject
Next Message Josh Berkus 2008-02-22 02:26:24 Re: Batch update of indexes on data loading
Previous Message Neil Conway 2008-02-22 02:11:06 Memory leaks on SRF rescan