On Mon, Jan 25, 2010 at 3:55 AM, Simon Riggs <si...@2ndquadrant.com> wrote: > On Mon, 2010-01-25 at 09:08 +0200, Peter Eisentraut wrote: >> On sön, 2010-01-24 at 20:32 +0000, Simon Riggs wrote: >> > Why do we have a parameter called "default_do_language" when we don't >> > have a parameter called "default_language"? >> >> According to the SQL standard, the default language for CREATE FUNCTION >> is SQL. Should we implement that? > > So the SQL Standard supports the concept of a default language? > > So should we, though giving the user the choice of what the default > should be, standard or otherwise.
I guess I'll add myself to the list of people who think this is a bad idea, for all the reasons previously stated. This will turn into another setting like search_path and standard_conforming_strings that can break working code if the actual value doesn't match the anticipated value. I can't figure out why someone would want to use this even if we had it. +1 for removing default_do_language, too. ...Robert -- Sent via pgsql-hackers mailing list (pgsql-hackers@postgresql.org) To make changes to your subscription: http://www.postgresql.org/mailpref/pgsql-hackers
