Peter Eisentraut <peter_e@gmx.net> writes:
> Tom Lane wrote:
>> In any case, not one of these arguments seems to me to favor the
>> alternative of preloading definitions into pg_language:
> That is not the alternative I am proposing. Your template idea,
> hard-coded even, is just fine for core languages. For non-core
> languages I am proposing that we simply do nothing because the problem
> we are solving does not exist, or at least has a wildly different
> nature.
Ah. We have been talking at cross-purposes then, because I thought you
were arguing for putting exactly the same template information into a
different place.
Given that, I think we can just agree to disagree: whether a particular
PL could benefit from a template entry is up to the author of that PL
to decide. Depending on the extent of the changes needed for 8.1, it
might or might not make sense to assume that a source code update is
needed, and if there isn't then maybe adding a template is a bad idea.
It does seem though that your arguments indicate a possible need for
local adjustment of the template info ... which means the hard-wired
approach is not good enough, and we have to take the next step of
creating a system catalog.
regards, tom lane
