On Sun, Mar 28, 2021, at 14:27, Pavel Stehule wrote: > ne 28. 3. 2021 v 13:49 odesÃlatel Joel Jacobson <j...@compiler.org> napsal: >> __It would of course be a problem since other plpgsql extensions could be in >> conflict with such a label, >> so maybe we could allow creating a new language, "plmycorp", using the same >> handlers as plpgsql, >> with the addition of a hard-coded #ROUTINE_LABEL as a part of the language >> definition, >> which would then be forbidden to override in function definitions. > > There is no technical problem, but if I remember well, the committers don't > like configuration settings that globally modify the behaviour. There can be > a lot of issues related to recovery from backups or porting to others > systems. Personally I understand and I accept it. There should be some press > for ensuring some level of compatibility. And can be really unfanny if you > cannot read routine from backups because you have "bad" postgres > configuration. It can work in your company, but this feature can be used by > others, and they can have problems.
I also dislike configuration that modify behaviour, but I don't think that's what I proposed. Creating a new language would not be configuration, it would be part of the dumpable/restorable schema, just like the functions. /Joel
