On Fri, 6 May 2005 04:45 pm, Jim C. Nasby wrote:
> On Fri, May 06, 2005 at 02:59:04PM +1000, Neil Conway wrote:
> > Is there a good reason that pl/pgsql is not installed in databases by
> > default?
>
> The only reason I've seen was "if we start with including plpgsql, where
> do we draw the line?"
Well, I thought and I'm sure it's been said, that plpgsql was our attempt to
match oracle's pl/sql. As Tom has already suggested in the Thread regarding
whether we should move PL's out or not, plpgsql is the only one that is entirely
internal to the db. This is where I would clearly draw the line. If you have a PL,
that is only reliant on the PostgreSQL being install, then you may have a case for
getting it enabled. Otherwise not a chance. I would say plpgsql is likely to be
the only PL in this situation for a long time, if the only one ever.
> Personally, I think it should be installed by default.
I agree with everybody else, having it enabled by default is a good idea.
Regards
Russell Smith
