"Kevin Grittner" <Kevin.Grittner@wicourts.gov> writes:
> So we're conceding that this is a valid need and people will now have
> a way to meet it. Is the argument against having CINE syntax that it
> would be more prone to error than the above, or that the code would be
> so large and complex as to create a maintenance burden?
The argument against CINE is that it's unsafe. The fragment proposed
by Andrew is no safer, of course, but it could be made safe by adding
additional checks that the properties of the existing object are what
the script expects. So in principle that's an acceptable approach,
whereas CINE will never be safe.
But actually I thought we had more or less concluded that CREATE OR
REPLACE LANGUAGE would be acceptable (perhaps only if it's given
without any extra args?). Or for that matter there seems to be enough
opinion on the side of just installing plpgsql by default. CINE is
a markedly inferior alternative to either of those.
regards, tom lane