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

Re: why does plperl cache functions using just a bool for is_trigger

From: Andrew Dunstan <andrew(at)dunslane(dot)net>
To: Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us>
Cc: Alex Hunsaker <badalex(at)gmail(dot)com>, Jan Urbański <wulczer(at)wulczer(dot)org>, Postgres - Hackers <pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org>
Subject: Re: why does plperl cache functions using just a bool for is_trigger
Date: 2010-11-01 16:02:20
Message-ID: 4CCEE48C.9050206@dunslane.net (view raw or flat)
Thread:
Lists: pgsql-hackers

On 11/01/2010 11:28 AM, Tom Lane wrote:
>   The fundamental issue here is that the contents of plperl_proc_desc
> structs are different between the trigger and non-trigger cases.
> Unless you're prepared to make them the same, and guarantee that they
> always will be the same in future, I think that including the istrigger
> flag in the hash key is a good safety feature.  It's also the same way
> that the other three PLs do things, and I see no good excuse for plperl
> to do things differently here.
>
> IOW, it's not broke, let's not fix it.

Ok, then let's make a note in the code to this effect. When the question 
was asked before about why it was there nobody seemed to have any good 
answer.

cheers

andrew

In response to

pgsql-hackers by date

Next:From: Tom LaneDate: 2010-11-01 16:25:08
Subject: Re: crash in plancache with subtransactions
Previous:From: Tom LaneDate: 2010-11-01 15:56:02
Subject: Re: [PATCH] More Coccinelli cleanups

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