On Tue, Feb 2, 2010 at 22:50, Tom Lane <tgl@sss.pgh.pa.us> wrote:
> Alex Hunsaker <badalex@gmail.com> writes:
>> On Tue, Feb 2, 2010 at 21:38, Tom Lane <tgl@sss.pgh.pa.us> wrote:
>>> Alex Hunsaker <badalex@gmail.com> writes:
>>>> Yeah the both is gross. How about:
>>>> plperl.on_plperl_init
>>>> plperl.on_plperlu_init
>>>> plperl.on_init ?
>> Well its already in.
>
> Well *that's* easily fixed. I think it's a bad idea, because it's
> unclear what you should put there and what the security implications
> are.
I can't speak for its virtue, maybe Tim, Andrew?
> Two entirely separate init strings seems much easier to understand
> and administer.
I think people might quibble with you on that...
But I do agree that it seems redundant.