Tom Lane wrote:
> David Fetter <david@fetter.org> writes:
>
>> On Tue, Feb 19, 2008 at 12:11:05PM -0500, Tom Lane wrote:
>>
>>> This has been proposed before, and rejected before. Have you got
>>> any new arguments?
>>>
>
>
>> The longer it's been since the last vuln in PL/PgSQL, the harder it is
>> to argue for having it not be there by default.
>>
>
> You are attacking a straw man, which is that the only argument against
> having PL/PgSQL installed is the risk of security holes in it.
>
>
>
I am having trouble locating the previous thread - can someone please
point me at it?
cheers
andrew