| 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 |
| Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
| 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
| From | Date | Subject | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Next Message | Tom Lane | 2010-11-01 16:25:08 | Re: crash in plancache with subtransactions |
| Previous Message | Tom Lane | 2010-11-01 15:56:02 | Re: [PATCH] More Coccinelli cleanups |