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

elein wrote:

>On Wed, Aug 31, 2005 at 05:56:52PM -0400, Tom Lane wrote:
>  
>
>>[ interesting scheme for language handlers ]
>>
>>It's a shame that we didn't think about this before feature freeze,
>>as the recent changes to create PL support functions in pg_catalog
>>have made both pg_dump and createlang noticeably uglier than before.
>>We could have dispensed with those hacks.  Oh well.
>>
>>Comments?
>>    
>>
>
>This idea appears to me to be sound.  It may be worth adding the
>feature during beta anyway to simplify the ugliness of pg_dump
>with createlang problems.  The large number of weird configurations
>"out there" could use the beta testing of this release.  I 
>ran into this issue a lot with non-standard installations.   
>
>  
>

I agree with Tom that it should not be done at this stage of beta. But 
maybe we should look again at the much lower impact suggestion I made 
when we moved the handlers and validators to pg_catalog, which was to 
have pg_dump also do that move rather than leave existing handlers in 
public. I suspect that might ease the pain a few people are feeling. If 
so it would be a reasonable stopgap until we get the whole thing right 
in the next cycle.

cheers

andrew