Jeremy Drake <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> On Mon, 26 Mar 2007, Tom Lane wrote:
>> Applied with minor revisions --- in particular, I thought the initial
>> owner of a language should be its creator, full stop, rather than the
>> rather strange (and undocumented) behavior you had.

> The reason I did it like that was this email from you:

Yeah, but that idea predated the addition of ALTER LANGUAGE OWNER to
the patch.  Given that, a superuser can give away the language to
someone else if he wants, and so there's no need for us to try to be
fancy about guessing what he wants (which was more or less what that
rule was).

                        regards, tom lane

---------------------------(end of broadcast)---------------------------
TIP 4: Have you searched our list archives?


Reply via email to