Peter Eisentraut <peter_e@gmx.net> writes:
> Extensibility means you don't control the naming. I guess if you want
> to say that this whole idea of extensibility in the language handler
> area is hereby withdrawn, doesn't work, never existed, then let's make
> that clear. Then we can hardcode everything, tell people, if you want
> to write a language handler, you should talk to us so we can arrange
> the hooks. That is the direction we're headed in.
Not at all! The direction we're headed in is that there are two layers
of abstraction instead of only one. What I put forward in my original
proposal was that there would be a superuser-alterable catalog of PL
templates and then pg_language would indicate what's actually available
in a particular database. I do not see that that's noticeably less
flexible than what we have done all along; especially seeing that the
DBA is not required to have a template for any particular PL.
I do concede that you've provided good reasons why a hard-wired template
table is not an adequate stopgap measure. If I go ahead and put in the
originally-proposed system catalog, will you be satisfied?
regards, tom lane
