Re: Procedural language definitions (was Re: 8.1 and syntax - Mailing list pgsql-hackers

From Andrew Dunstan
Subject Re: Procedural language definitions (was Re: 8.1 and syntax
Date
Msg-id 4318B44E.3050304@dunslane.net
Whole thread Raw
In response to Re: Procedural language definitions (was Re: 8.1 and syntax checking at create time)  (Tom Lane <tgl@sss.pgh.pa.us>)
Responses Re: Procedural language definitions (was Re: 8.1 and syntax checking at create time)
List pgsql-hackers

Tom Lane wrote:

>
>I feel the best idea for a non-initdb-forcing solution is to hardwire
>the template knowledge into CREATE LANGUAGE for 8.1 (with of course the
>intention of doing my full original proposal for 8.2).  With that in
>place, the only messiness from loading old dumps is that you would have
>handler function definitions in public --- but they wouldn't be used
>(the actual languages would rely on handlers in pg_catalog) and could be
>dropped easily.
>
>
>  
>

Ok, that sounds good. Maybe have pg_dump issue a warning about the 
useless handler funcs left lying around?

cheers

andrew


pgsql-hackers by date:

Previous
From: Alvaro Herrera
Date:
Subject: Re: Remove xmin and cmin from frozen tuples
Next
From: Josh Berkus
Date:
Subject: Re: Remove xmin and cmin from frozen tuples