On Wednesday, February 3, 2010, 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 ?
>>>
>>> I like the first two. The problem of selecting a good name for the
>>> third one is easily solved: don't have it. What would it be except
>>> a headache and a likely security problem?
>
>> 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. Two entirely separate init strings seems much easier to understand
> and administer.
>
+1.
It's a simple copy/paste in the config file if you want them the same
anyway, right?
/Magnus
-- Magnus HaganderMe: http://www.hagander.net/Work: http://www.redpill-linpro.com/