Re: Procedural language definitions (was Re: 8.1 and syntax

From: Andrew Dunstan <andrew(at)dunslane(dot)net>
To: Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us>
Cc: elein <elein(at)varlena(dot)com>, pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org
Subject: Re: Procedural language definitions (was Re: 8.1 and syntax
Date: 2005-09-02 20:21:34
Message-ID: 4318B44E.3050304@dunslane.net
Views: Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email
Thread:
Lists: pgsql-hackers

Tom Lane wrote:

>
>I feel the best idea for a non-initdb-forcing solution is to hardwire
>the template knowledge into CREATE LANGUAGE for 8.1 (with of course the
>intention of doing my full original proposal for 8.2). With that in
>place, the only messiness from loading old dumps is that you would have
>handler function definitions in public --- but they wouldn't be used
>(the actual languages would rely on handlers in pg_catalog) and could be
>dropped easily.
>
>
>
>

Ok, that sounds good. Maybe have pg_dump issue a warning about the
useless handler funcs left lying around?

cheers

andrew

In response to

Responses

Browse pgsql-hackers by date

  From Date Subject
Next Message Tom Lane 2005-09-02 20:27:59 Re: Remove xmin and cmin from frozen tuples
Previous Message Alvaro Herrera 2005-09-02 20:21:00 Re: Remove xmin and cmin from frozen tuples