On Fri, Feb 22, 2008 at 2:33 AM, Tom Lane <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > Josh Berkus <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> 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 know I'm gonna regret wading in on this, but in my mind this is akin to one of the arguments for including tsearch in the core server - namely that too many brain dead hosting providers won't add a contrib module or anything else in a customer's database because they don't understand that just because it's not there by default doesn't mean it's in any way second rate. Including pl/pgsql in template1 will help those folks who forwhatever reason use such providers, whilst more savvy providers can easily disable it post-initdb if thats what they want to do. -- Dave Page EnterpriseDB UK: http://www.enterprisedb.com The Oracle-compatible database company ---------------------------(end of broadcast)--------------------------- TIP 3: Have you checked our extensive FAQ? http://www.postgresql.org/docs/faq
