On Wednesday, February 3, 2010, Tom Lane <t...@sss.pgh.pa.us> wrote: > Alex Hunsaker <bada...@gmail.com> writes: >> On Tue, Feb 2, 2010 at 21:38, Tom Lane <t...@sss.pgh.pa.us> wrote: >>> Alex Hunsaker <bada...@gmail.com> writes: >>>> Yeah the both is gross. How about: >>>> plperl.on_plperl_init >>>> plperl.on_plperlu_init >>>> plperl.on_init ? >>> >>> I like the first two. The problem of selecting a good name for the >>> third one is easily solved: don't have it. What would it be except >>> a headache and a likely security problem? > >> Well its already in. > > Well *that's* easily fixed. I think it's a bad idea, because it's > unclear what you should put there and what the security implications > are. Two entirely separate init strings seems much easier to understand > and administer. >
+1. It's a simple copy/paste in the config file if you want them the same anyway, right? /Magnus -- Magnus Hagander Me: http://www.hagander.net/ Work: http://www.redpill-linpro.com/ -- Sent via pgsql-hackers mailing list (pgsql-hackers@postgresql.org) To make changes to your subscription: http://www.postgresql.org/mailpref/pgsql-hackers
