| From: | Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us> |
|---|---|
| To: | David Fetter <david(at)fetter(dot)org> |
| Cc: | Alvaro Herrera <alvherre(at)commandprompt(dot)com>, Tim Bunce <Tim(dot)Bunce(at)pobox(dot)com>, Robert Haas <robertmhaas(at)gmail(dot)com>, pgsql-bugs(at)postgresql(dot)org |
| Subject: | Re: BUG #5066: plperl issues with perl_destruct() and END blocks |
| Date: | 2009-09-21 23:30:51 |
| Message-ID: | 28109.1253575851@sss.pgh.pa.us |
| Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
| Thread: | |
| Lists: | pgsql-bugs |
David Fetter <david(at)fetter(dot)org> writes:
> On Mon, Sep 21, 2009 at 12:06:30PM -0400, Alvaro Herrera wrote:
>>> With connection poolers, backends can last quite awhile. Is it OK
>>> for the END block to run hours after the rest of the code?
>>
>> This is an interesting point -- should END blocks be called on
>> DISCARD ALL?
> ENOCLUE
And in the same vein, should they be called inside a transaction,
or not? What if they fail?
I don't see any reason whatsoever that we couldn't just document this
as a Perl feature not supported in plperl. If you do something like
creating threads inside plperl, we're going to give you the raspberry
when you complain about it breaking. END blocks can perfectly well
go into the same category.
regards, tom lane
| From | Date | Subject | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Next Message | alexander.over | 2009-09-22 04:54:48 | BUG #5071: abbrev() bug with IPv6 |
| Previous Message | Matt Taylor | 2009-09-21 21:07:11 | Re: BUG #5063: MS Access crashes by quiting after linking tables with PostgreSQL |