On Mon, 2010-01-25 at 09:08 +0200, Peter Eisentraut wrote:
On sön, 2010-01-24 at 20:32 +, Simon Riggs wrote:
Why do we have a parameter called default_do_language when we don't
have a parameter called default_language?
According to the SQL standard, the default language for CREATE
On Mon, Jan 25, 2010 at 3:55 AM, Simon Riggs si...@2ndquadrant.com wrote:
On Mon, 2010-01-25 at 09:08 +0200, Peter Eisentraut wrote:
On sön, 2010-01-24 at 20:32 +, Simon Riggs wrote:
Why do we have a parameter called default_do_language when we don't
have a parameter called
On Mon, 2010-01-25 at 09:30 -0500, Robert Haas wrote:
+1 for removing default_do_language, too.
+1 for removing default_do_language OR adding default_language.
I prefer a hard-wired default of PLpgSQL, so a missing language
statement on a DO block is always interpreted the same.
--
Simon
--On 25. Januar 2010 09:30:56 -0500 Robert Haas robertmh...@gmail.com
wrote:
This will turn into
another setting like search_path and standard_conforming_strings that
can break working code if the actual value doesn't match the
anticipated value. I can't figure out why someone would want
Simon Riggs si...@2ndquadrant.com writes:
On Mon, 2010-01-25 at 09:30 -0500, Robert Haas wrote:
+1 for removing default_do_language, too.
+1 for removing default_do_language OR adding default_language.
I prefer a hard-wired default of PLpgSQL, so a missing language
statement on a DO block
On Mon, 2010-01-25 at 20:26 -0500, Tom Lane wrote:
So it seems everyone is okay with the latter? (Remove
default_do_language in place of a hard-wired default of plpgsql,
don't change CREATE FUNCTION's behavior.)
+1
Regards,
Jeff Davis
--
Sent via pgsql-hackers mailing list
On Mon, Jan 25, 2010 at 08:26:14PM -0500, Tom Lane wrote:
Simon Riggs si...@2ndquadrant.com writes:
On Mon, 2010-01-25 at 09:30 -0500, Robert Haas wrote:
+1 for removing default_do_language, too.
+1 for removing default_do_language OR adding default_language.
I prefer a hard-wired
On mån, 2010-01-25 at 20:26 -0500, Tom Lane wrote:
Simon Riggs si...@2ndquadrant.com writes:
On Mon, 2010-01-25 at 09:30 -0500, Robert Haas wrote:
+1 for removing default_do_language, too.
+1 for removing default_do_language OR adding default_language.
I prefer a hard-wired default of
On mån, 2010-01-25 at 20:26 -0500, Tom Lane wrote:
Simon Riggs si...@2ndquadrant.com writes:
On Mon, 2010-01-25 at 09:30 -0500, Robert Haas wrote:
+1 for removing default_do_language, too.
+1 for removing default_do_language OR adding default_language.
I prefer a hard-wired default of
Why do we have a parameter called default_do_language when we don't
have a parameter called default_language?
This is remarkably inconsistent. Why the difference? 5 years from now,
whatever reason we had will seem just strange.
Please can we have default_language? Or language_path so we can
On Sun, 2010-01-24 at 20:32 +, Simon Riggs wrote:
Or language_path so we can tell
CREATE FUNCTION to try the languages in order? Or better still, try all
the installed languages that the user has rights to in alphabetic
order?
What do you mean try? It seems a little dangerous to just try
Simon Riggs si...@2ndquadrant.com writes:
Please can we have default_language?
That sounds like something I could want to use someday.
Or language_path so we can tell
CREATE FUNCTION to try the languages in order? Or better still, try all
the installed languages that the user has rights to
Jeff Davis pg...@j-davis.com writes:
I would actually lean the other way and say that we shouldn't be
introducing behavior-changing GUCs (except for the special case of
supporting legacy behavior, like standard_conforming_strings).
Yeah --- GUCs that affect semantics (as opposed to
On Jan 24, 2010, at 2:04 PM, Tom Lane wrote:
I don't see any strong argument for having a default for CREATE
FUNCTION. The original argument for having a GUC for DO was that
plpgsql wasn't built in; now that it is, I think a case could
be made for dropping default_do_language in favor of a
On Sun, 2010-01-24 at 17:04 -0500, Tom Lane wrote:
If we have a default (for DO and CREATE FUNCTION), why not hard-wire the
default to plpgsql?
I don't see any strong argument for having a default for CREATE
FUNCTION. The original argument for having a GUC for DO was that
plpgsql wasn't
On Sun, Jan 24, 2010 at 11:18 PM, Simon Riggs si...@2ndquadrant.com wrote:
I would prefer having the option, but removing it completely does at
least solve the bizarre inconsistency I've highlighted.
I don't see it as much of an inconsistency. The whole point of DO is
to be convenient, whereas
Greg Stark wrote:
On Sun, Jan 24, 2010 at 11:18 PM, Simon Riggs si...@2ndquadrant.com wrote:
I would prefer having the option, but removing it completely does at
least solve the bizarre inconsistency I've highlighted.
I don't see it as much of an inconsistency. The whole point of
On Sun, 2010-01-24 at 23:59 +, Greg Stark wrote:
On Sun, Jan 24, 2010 at 11:18 PM, Simon Riggs si...@2ndquadrant.com wrote:
I would prefer having the option, but removing it completely does at
least solve the bizarre inconsistency I've highlighted.
I don't see it as much of an
On sön, 2010-01-24 at 20:32 +, Simon Riggs wrote:
Why do we have a parameter called default_do_language when we don't
have a parameter called default_language?
According to the SQL standard, the default language for CREATE FUNCTION
is SQL. Should we implement that?
--
Sent via
2010/1/25 Peter Eisentraut pete...@gmx.net:
On sön, 2010-01-24 at 20:32 +, Simon Riggs wrote:
Why do we have a parameter called default_do_language when we don't
have a parameter called default_language?
According to the SQL standard, the default language for CREATE FUNCTION
is SQL.
On mån, 2010-01-25 at 08:09 +0100, Pavel Stehule wrote:
2010/1/25 Peter Eisentraut pete...@gmx.net:
On sön, 2010-01-24 at 20:32 +, Simon Riggs wrote:
Why do we have a parameter called default_do_language when we don't
have a parameter called default_language?
According to the SQL
2010/1/25 Peter Eisentraut pete...@gmx.net:
On mån, 2010-01-25 at 08:09 +0100, Pavel Stehule wrote:
2010/1/25 Peter Eisentraut pete...@gmx.net:
On sön, 2010-01-24 at 20:32 +, Simon Riggs wrote:
Why do we have a parameter called default_do_language when we don't
have a parameter called
22 matches
Mail list logo
