David Fetter <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> On Tue, Feb 19, 2008 at 12:11:05PM -0500, Tom Lane wrote:
>> This has been proposed before, and rejected before. Have you got
>> any new arguments?
> The longer it's been since the last vuln in PL/PgSQL, the harder it is
> to argue for having it not be there by default.
You are attacking a straw man, which is that the only argument against
having PL/PgSQL installed is the risk of security holes in it.
regards, tom lane
---------------------------(end of broadcast)---------------------------
TIP 3: Have you checked our extensive FAQ?
http://www.postgresql.org/docs/faq
