On Tue, Feb 2, 2010 at 22:50, Tom Lane <t...@sss.pgh.pa.us> wrote: > Alex Hunsaker <bada...@gmail.com> writes: >> On Tue, Feb 2, 2010 at 21:38, Tom Lane <t...@sss.pgh.pa.us> wrote: >>> Alex Hunsaker <bada...@gmail.com> writes: >>>> Yeah the both is gross. How about: >>>> plperl.on_plperl_init >>>> plperl.on_plperlu_init >>>> plperl.on_init ?
>> 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. I can't speak for its virtue, maybe Tim, Andrew? > Two entirely separate init strings seems much easier to understand > and administer. I think people might quibble with you on that... But I do agree that it seems redundant. -- Sent via pgsql-hackers mailing list (pgsql-hackers@postgresql.org) To make changes to your subscription: http://www.postgresql.org/mailpref/pgsql-hackers
