On Mon, Sep 21, 2009 at 01:06:17PM -0400, Alvaro Herrera wrote:
> David Fetter escribió:
> > 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?
> The fine manual saith
> You may have multiple "END" blocks within a file--they will
> execute in reverse order of definition; that is: last in, first
> out (LIFO).
> But then, why would we care? We just call the destructor and Perl
> ensures that the blocks are called in the right order.
This is not quite what I meant. Let's say we have two or more different
PL/Perl functions executed over the course of a backend. Which one's
END block gets executed last? Do we need to warn people about this?
Generate a WARNING, even?
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
pgsql-bugs by date
|Next:||From: Robert Haas||Date: 2009-09-21 18:28:11|
|Subject: Re: BUG #5066: plperl issues with perl_destruct() and END blocks|
|Previous:||From: Robert Haas||Date: 2009-09-21 17:22:29|
|Subject: Re: BUG #5053: domain constraints still leak|