"Kevin Grittner" <Kevin.Grittner@xxxxxxxxxxxx> writes: > So we're conceding that this is a valid need and people will now have > a way to meet it. Is the argument against having CINE syntax that it > would be more prone to error than the above, or that the code would be > so large and complex as to create a maintenance burden? The argument against CINE is that it's unsafe. The fragment proposed by Andrew is no safer, of course, but it could be made safe by adding additional checks that the properties of the existing object are what the script expects. So in principle that's an acceptable approach, whereas CINE will never be safe. But actually I thought we had more or less concluded that CREATE OR REPLACE LANGUAGE would be acceptable (perhaps only if it's given without any extra args?). Or for that matter there seems to be enough opinion on the side of just installing plpgsql by default. CINE is a markedly inferior alternative to either of those. regards, tom lane -- Sent via pgsql-general mailing list (pgsql-general@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx) To make changes to your subscription: http://www.postgresql.org/mailpref/pgsql-general
