From: | Merlin Moncure <mmoncure(at)gmail(dot)com> |
---|---|
To: | "James B(dot) Byrne" <byrnejb(at)harte-lyne(dot)ca> |
Cc: | pgsql-general(at)postgresql(dot)org |
Subject: | Re: Need help extripating plpgsql |
Date: | 2013-02-21 18:23:00 |
Message-ID: | CAHyXU0yEqv9hM8PmYTbFRFWSWdPpBsaK_Mo4UoBa0p-eaVQKPA@mail.gmail.com |
Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
Thread: | |
Lists: | pgsql-general |
On Thu, Feb 21, 2013 at 11:48 AM, James B. Byrne <byrnejb(at)harte-lyne(dot)ca> wrote:
>
> On Thu, February 21, 2013 12:38, James B. Byrne wrote:
>> I am trying, without success, to create a PG-9.2 database without
>> including the plpgsql extension. I have tried specifying template0
>> and the database is nonetheless created with plpgsql. I have deleted
>> plpgsql from template1 and the new database is nonetheless created
>> with plpgsql.
>>
>> I desire to remove plpgsql from newly created databases because the
>> dump that is generated by pgdump contains this line:
>>
>> CREATE EXTENSION IF NOT EXISTS plpgsql WITH SCHEMA pg_catalog;
>>
>
> Wrong line. This is the line
>
> COMMENT ON EXTENSION plpgsql IS 'PL/pgSQL procedural language';
>
> And yes, I went through this a year ago with PG-9.1 and resolved it
> once by switching to template0 in the connection configuration. Now it
> is back with PG-9.2. using the exact same configuration code because
> evidently plpgsql is added regardless.
curious why you want to do this. there was actually some debate back
in the day about pros/cons of having pl/pgsql be a built-in feature,
which as you can see is where things are going.
if you don't mind surgery with a shotgun, you can simply drop the
extension after the load resolves.
merlin
From | Date | Subject | |
---|---|---|---|
Next Message | bricklen | 2013-02-21 18:37:22 | Re: View to show privileges on views/tables/sequences/foreign tables |
Previous Message | James B. Byrne | 2013-02-21 17:48:16 | Re: Need help extripating plpgsql |