Re: Including PL/PgSQL by default
От | Joshua D. Drake |
---|---|
Тема | Re: Including PL/PgSQL by default |
Дата | |
Msg-id | 47BE9D36.5010306@commandprompt.com обсуждение исходный текст |
Ответ на | Re: Including PL/PgSQL by default (Tom Lane <tgl@sss.pgh.pa.us>) |
Ответы |
Re: Including PL/PgSQL by default
|
Список | pgsql-hackers |
Tom Lane wrote: > 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. I probably shouldn't be answering this at two in the morning but... As I understand it in a hosted environment it is quite common that a superuser will do this: create database foo owner foo; Database foo would get plpgsql (as would user foo) at that point because template1 had plpgsql. Sincerely, Joshua D. Drake > > regards, tom lane >
В списке pgsql-hackers по дате отправления: