Re: Including PL/PgSQL by default
От | Tom Lane |
---|---|
Тема | Re: Including PL/PgSQL by default |
Дата | |
Msg-id | 20693.1203647583@sss.pgh.pa.us обсуждение исходный текст |
Ответ на | Re: Including PL/PgSQL by default (Josh Berkus <josh@agliodbs.com>) |
Ответы |
Re: Including PL/PgSQL by default
Re: Including PL/PgSQL by default Re: Including PL/PgSQL by default Re: Including PL/PgSQL by default |
Список | pgsql-hackers |
Josh Berkus <josh@agliodbs.com> writes: > 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? > 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. That statement is content-free, Josh. Exactly what are you assuming this developer *does* have? For example, if he hasn't got createdb privilege, it will hardly matter to him whether any DBs other than "postgres" contain plpgsql. If he does have createdb, it's already possible by default for him to create trusted languages including plpgsql in his new DB. So it's still 100% unclear to me who we are catering to. regards, tom lane
В списке pgsql-hackers по дате отправления: