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: Alex Hunsaker <badalex(at)gmail(dot)com>
To: Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us>
Cc: "David E(dot) Wheeler" <david(dot)wheeler(at)pgexperts(dot)com>, Tim Bunce <Tim(dot)Bunce(at)pobox(dot)com>, pgsql-bugs(at)postgresql(dot)org
Subject: Re: New PL/Perl failure with Safe 2.2x due to recursion (8.x & 9.0)
Date: 2010-02-25 19:29:33
Message-ID: 34d269d41002251129j743c55e6jb7f8e57d4079113d@mail.gmail.com (view raw or flat)
Thread:
Lists: pgsql-bugs
On Thu, Feb 25, 2010 at 12:20, Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us> wrote:
> Alex Hunsaker <badalex(at)gmail(dot)com> writes:
>> 3) patch postgres to fix the recursive issue (What I'm leaning towards)
>> [ fixes both issues ]
>
> How exactly would you propose doing that?

Well that's the thing, probably by what I described below that. Namely
get something working for 9.1 and after we know its good and solid see
if we can back patch it.  Unfeasible?  If its really really simple and
straight forward maybe we can find a -commiter willing to commit it
sooner.  But I'm dubious.  I think the feeling between me and Tim is
patching postgres is a last resort...  Maybe if its to fix both sort
{} and this it might be worth it. (That's at least how I parsed what
you said :) ).  Ill see if I can figure something out via straight
Safe tonight.

In response to

Responses

pgsql-bugs by date

Next:From: David E. WheelerDate: 2010-02-25 19:31:37
Subject: Re: New PL/Perl failure with Safe 2.2x due to recursion (8.x & 9.0)
Previous:From: Tom LaneDate: 2010-02-25 19:20:10
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