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

Re: New PL/Perl failure with Safe 2.2x due to recursion (8.x & 9.0)

From: Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us>
To: Alex Hunsaker <badalex(at)gmail(dot)com>
Cc: Tim Bunce <Tim(dot)Bunce(at)pobox(dot)com>, pgsql-bugs(at)postgresql(dot)org, "David E(dot) Wheeler" <david(dot)wheeler(at)pgexperts(dot)com>
Subject: Re: New PL/Perl failure with Safe 2.2x due to recursion (8.x & 9.0)
Date: 2010-02-25 03:58:17
Message-ID: 20100.1267070297@sss.pgh.pa.us (view raw or flat)
Thread:
Lists: pgsql-bugs
Alex Hunsaker <badalex(at)gmail(dot)com> writes:
> On Wed, Feb 24, 2010 at 20:37, Alex Hunsaker <badalex(at)gmail(dot)com> wrote:
>> On Wed, Feb 24, 2010 at 20:19, Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us> wrote:
>>> Seems entirely unacceptable.

>> I think we will see if we can get this fixed on the Safe/perl side then.

> BTW the trade off here is we revert back to sort { $a <=> $b } not
> working.  That is if you could call it a trade off... The level of
> breaking is not really comparable :)

That's two unacceptable alternatives, you need to find a third one.
I think most people will have no trouble settling on "do not update
to Safe 2.2x" if you don't offer a better solution than these.

			regards, tom lane

In response to

Responses

pgsql-bugs by date

Next:From: Tom LaneDate: 2010-02-25 04:22:57
Subject: Re: PostgreSQL-9.0alpha: jade required?
Previous:From: Alex HunsakerDate: 2010-02-25 03:48:27
Subject: Re: New PL/Perl failure with Safe 2.2x due to recursion (8.x & 9.0)

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