From: | Christopher Kings-Lynne <chriskl(at)familyhealth(dot)com(dot)au> |
---|---|
To: | Neil Conway <neilc(at)samurai(dot)com> |
Cc: | pgsql-hackers <pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org> |
Subject: | Re: pl/pgsql enabled by default |
Date: | 2005-05-06 05:21:36 |
Message-ID: | 427AFEE0.405@familyhealth.com.au |
Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
Thread: | |
Lists: | pgsql-hackers |
> Is there a good reason that pl/pgsql is not installed in databases by
> default?
>
> I think it should be. pl/pgsql is widely used, and having it installed
> by default would be one less hurdle for newbies to overcome when
> learning PostgreSQL. It would also make it easier to distribute
> applications that depend on PostgreSQL and use PL/PgSQL: rather than
> saying "You need PostgreSQL, and then you need to do [ createlang stuff
> ]", those applications can just depend on a sufficiently recent version
> of PostgreSQL.
>
> AFAICS, the overhead of installing it by default would not be large:
> just an extra row in pg_language and a few rows in pg_proc. So I can't
> really see a major reason *not* to do this -- am I missing one?
Problem is people restoring dumps that have the plpgsql create language,
etc. commands in them.
I strongly think that pgsql should come with pl/pgsql on by default,
however ;)
Chris
From | Date | Subject | |
---|---|---|---|
Next Message | Neil Conway | 2005-05-06 05:26:48 | Re: pl/pgsql enabled by default |
Previous Message | jtv | 2005-05-06 05:16:11 | Re: pgFoundry |