Skip site navigation (1) Skip section navigation (2)

Re: BUG #5066: plperl issues with perl_destruct() and ENDblocks

From: David Fetter <david(at)fetter(dot)org>
To: Alvaro Herrera <alvherre(at)commandprompt(dot)com>
Cc: Tim Bunce <Tim(dot)Bunce(at)pobox(dot)com>, Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us>,Robert Haas <robertmhaas(at)gmail(dot)com>, pgsql-bugs(at)postgresql(dot)org
Subject: Re: BUG #5066: plperl issues with perl_destruct() and ENDblocks
Date: 2009-09-21 16:53:27
Message-ID: 20090921165327.GJ31599@fetter.org (view raw or flat)
Thread:
Lists: pgsql-bugs
On Mon, Sep 21, 2009 at 12:06:30PM -0400, Alvaro Herrera wrote:
> David Fetter escribió:
> 
> > Taken literally, that would mean, "the last action before the
> > backend exits," but at least to me, that sounds troubling for the
> > same reasons that "end of transaction" triggers do.  What happens
> > when there are two different END blocks in a session?
> 
> The manual is clear that both are executed.

So it is, but does order matter, and if so, how would PostgreSQL know?

> > With connection poolers, backends can last quite awhile.  Is it OK
> > for the END block to run hours after the rest of the code?
> 
> This is an interesting point -- should END blocks be called on
> DISCARD ALL?

ENOCLUE

Cheers,
David.
-- 
David Fetter <david(at)fetter(dot)org> http://fetter.org/
Phone: +1 415 235 3778  AIM: dfetter666  Yahoo!: dfetter
Skype: davidfetter      XMPP: david(dot)fetter(at)gmail(dot)com

Remember to vote!
Consider donating to Postgres: http://www.postgresql.org/about/donate

In response to

Responses

pgsql-bugs by date

Next:From: Alvaro HerreraDate: 2009-09-21 17:06:17
Subject: Re: BUG #5066: plperl issues with perl_destruct() and END blocks
Previous:From: Alvaro HerreraDate: 2009-09-21 16:49:22
Subject: Re: Drop schema cascade fails since postgresql 8.4

Privacy Policy | About PostgreSQL
Copyright © 1996-2014 The PostgreSQL Global Development Group