Andrew Dunstan <andrew(at)dunslane(dot)net> writes:
> Tom Lane wrote:
>> 3. Support separate interpreters if possible, refuse to run both plperl
>> and plperlu functions in the same backend if not.
> How would we decide which wins in the third case? "first in" seems
> rather arbitrary. If we went that way I'd probably plump for just
> plperlu to be allowed.
"First used in a given backend" was exactly what I had in mind.
Certainly it wouldn't be perfect, but your proposal seems to be
"disable plperl altogether if no separate-interpreter support",
which seems overly harsh. Especially for someone who doesn't
even want to install plperlu.
regards, tom lane
In response to
pgsql-hackers by date
|Next:||From: Chris Campbell||Date: 2006-10-26 22:11:59|
|Subject: Re: Deadlock with pg_dump?|
|Previous:||From: Andrew Dunstan||Date: 2006-10-26 21:45:09|
|Subject: Re: plperl/plperlu interaction|