On Fri, Feb 22, 2008 at 2:33 AM, Tom Lane <tgl@sss.pgh.pa.us> wrote:
> Josh Berkus <josh@agliodbs.com> 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