Tom Lane wrote:
> (What the PL template approach *would* do is make it difficult to
> create a language that is trusted but named pljavau, or untrusted and
> named pljava.
But the latter is exactly what I would like to do.
> Personally I don't see that as a bad thing, however.
> The opportunity for confusion is far too great if you go against the
> established naming conventions.)
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area is hereby withdrawn, doesn't work, never existed, then let's make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. The PostgreSQL
developers and the language handler authors dictate to the user what
language he can use in what mode. If you don't like it, here's a way
to do manual surgery to change it. Of course you can always change
everything with varying effort. So yeah, that would work, but then it
should be called that. But sacrificing user options to reduce
"confusion" is hardly our game.
--
Peter Eisentraut
http://developer.postgresql.org/~petere/
