Re: [HACKERS] Updating column on row update

Scott Marlowe <scott.marlowe@gmail.com>

From: Scott Marlowe <scott.marlowe@gmail.com>

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

Cc: Andrew Dunstan <andrew@dunslane.net>, Robert Haas <robertmhaas@gmail.com>, Craig Ringer <craig@postnewspapers.com.au>, Thom Brown <thombrown@gmail.com>, PGSQL Mailing List <pgsql-general@postgresql.org>, pgsql-hackers@postgresql.org

Date: 2009-11-23T05:32:45Z

Lists: pgsql-hackers, pgsql-general

On Sun, Nov 22, 2009 at 10:19 PM, Tom Lane <tgl@sss.pgh.pa.us> wrote:
> Andrew Dunstan <andrew@dunslane.net> writes:
>> Part of the motivation for allowing inline blocks was to allow for
>> conditional logic.
>
> I don't think that argument really applies to this case, because the
> complaint was about not being sure if plpgsql is installed.  If it
> isn't, you can hardly use a plpgsql DO block to fix it.
>
> (Is anyone up for revisiting the perennial topic of whether to install
> plpgsql by default?  Andrew's argument does suggest that DO might offer
> a new consideration in that tradeoff.)

One non-coding vote for yes.