Tom Lane wrote:
> Alvaro Herrera <alvherre@commandprompt.com> writes:
>
>> Tom Lane wrote:
>>
>>> Anyway, as I said before, I don't object to installing plpgsql by
>>> default. What I do object to is installing it in a way that makes it
>>> difficult for the DBA to remove it, as would be the case if it were in
>>> template0 for example.
>>>
>
>
>> Perhaps it can be installed in template1 after the copy, if a certain
>> initdb option is passed?
>>
>
> Yeah, we'd have to rejigger initdb a bit. The bigger problem is that
> traditionally template0 has been seen as a backup for template1, and it
> wouldn't be (quite) that if the initial contents are different.
>
> Would it satisfy people if plpgsql were in postgres, but neither
> template DB, after initdb? This would make it available to the sort of
> person who's too lazy to learn about CREATE DATABASE, and one would
> think that if they can handle CREATE DATABASE then CREATE LANGUAGE
> is not beyond their powers.
>
>
I don't see any point in doing it at all unless it gets into new DBs by
default. So, no, I don't think that's going to be very helpful.
I don't see a huge problem in loading it to template1 after we copy
template1 to template0 - anyone who is going to touch template0 at any
time is likely to have enough postgres-fu to be able to manage.
cheers
andrew
