Re: PGXS: REGRESS_OPTS=--load-language=plpgsql

Tom Lane <tgl@sss.pgh.pa.us>

From: Tom Lane <tgl@sss.pgh.pa.us>

To: Robert Haas <robertmhaas@gmail.com>

Cc: Bruce Momjian <bruce@momjian.us>, "David E. Wheeler" <david@kineticode.com>, Dimitri Fontaine <dfontaine@hi-media.com>, Takahiro Itagaki <itagaki.takahiro@oss.ntt.co.jp>, David Fetter <david@fetter.org>, Euler Taveira de Oliveira <euler@timbira.com>, PG Hackers <pgsql-hackers@postgresql.org>

Date: 2010-02-20T23:03:22Z

Lists: pgsql-hackers

Robert Haas <robertmhaas@gmail.com> writes:
> On Sat, Feb 20, 2010 at 5:53 PM, Tom Lane <tgl@sss.pgh.pa.us> wrote:
>> I don't think that the way to fix this is to have an ugly kluge in
>> pg_dump and another ugly kluge in pg_regress (and no doubt ugly kluges
>> elsewhere by the time all the dust settles).

> IMO, the non-ugly kludges are (1) implement CREATE OR REPLACE LANGUAGE
> and (2) revert the original patch.  Do you want to do one of those
> (which?) or do you have another idea?

Well, I'm willing to implement CREATE OR REPLACE LANGUAGE if people
are agreed that that's a reasonable fix.  I'm slightly worried about
the restore-could-change-ownership issue, but I think that's much less
likely to cause problems than embedding special cases for plpgsql in a
pile of places that we'll never find again.

			regards, tom lane