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
In response to
pgsql-hackers by date
|Next:||From: Tom Lane||Date: 2010-11-01 16:25:08|
|Subject: Re: crash in plancache with subtransactions |
|Previous:||From: Tom Lane||Date: 2010-11-01 15:56:02|
|Subject: Re: [PATCH] More Coccinelli cleanups |