On Wed, Feb 3, 2010 at 06:41, Andrew Dunstan <and...@dunslane.net> wrote: > > > Alex Hunsaker wrote: >>>>> >>>>> 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. >>> >>> I can't speak for its virtue, maybe Tim, Andrew?
> Regarding the naming of the params, I'm not keen to have more than one > custom_variable_class for plperl. Within that, maybe we can bikeshed the > names a bit. I don't have terribly strong feelings. Hey! I don't think were quite to that nasty B word yet :) I would argue that treating plperl and plperlu as the same language just because it shares the same code is a mistake. But I hate the idea of two custom_variable_classes for plperl(u) as well. Which is why I quickly switched to plperl.on_plperl(u)_init. Any thoughts on those? Again maybe people think the original names are fine... *shrug*. -- Sent via pgsql-hackers mailing list (pgsql-hackers@postgresql.org) To make changes to your subscription: http://www.postgresql.org/mailpref/pgsql-hackers
