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

Re: Error handling in plperl and pltcl

From: Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us>
To: James William Pye <flaw(at)rhid(dot)com>
Cc: Thomas Hallgren <thhal(at)mailblocks(dot)com>,Richard Huxton <dev(at)archonet(dot)com>, Jan Wieck <JanWieck(at)Yahoo(dot)com>,Hackers <pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org>
Subject: Re: Error handling in plperl and pltcl
Date: 2004-11-30 21:24:24
Message-ID: 24748.1101849864@sss.pgh.pa.us (view raw or flat)
Thread:
Lists: pgsql-hackers
James William Pye <flaw(at)rhid(dot)com> writes:
> plpy being an untrusted language, I *ultimately* do not have control
> over this. I can only specify things within my code. I *cannot* stop a
> user from making an extension module that draws interfaces to those
> routines that may rollback to a savepoint defined by the caller.

In which case, whether it works or not is his problem not yours ;-)
This is a straw-man argument, as is the entire discussion IMHO.
Wrapping each individual SPI command in a subtransaction IN NO WAY
prevents us from adding programmer-controllable savepoint features
to the PL languages later.  It simply ensures that we have somewhat
sane error recovery behavior in the meantime.  The only valid argument
against doing it is the one of added overhead, and I already gave my
responses to that one.

			regards, tom lane

In response to

Responses

pgsql-hackers by date

Next:From: Thomas HallgrenDate: 2004-11-30 21:25:00
Subject: Re: Error handling in plperl and pltcl
Previous:From: Thomas HallgrenDate: 2004-11-30 21:15:30
Subject: Re: Error handling in plperl and pltcl

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