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

Re: plperl/plperlu interaction

From: Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us>
To: Andrew Dunstan <andrew(at)dunslane(dot)net>
Cc: Andrej Ricnik-Bay <andrej(dot)groups(at)gmail(dot)com>, "Jim C(dot) Nasby" <jim(at)nasby(dot)net>, Jeff Trout <threshar(at)real(dot)jefftrout(dot)com>, Martijn van Oosterhout <kleptog(at)svana(dot)org>, PostgreSQL-development <pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org>
Subject: Re: plperl/plperlu interaction
Date: 2006-10-26 21:59:14
Message-ID: 26136.1161899954@sss.pgh.pa.us (view raw or flat)
Thread:
Lists: pgsql-hackers
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 CampbellDate: 2006-10-26 22:11:59
Subject: Re: Deadlock with pg_dump?
Previous:From: Andrew DunstanDate: 2006-10-26 21:45:09
Subject: Re: plperl/plperlu interaction

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