| From: | Robert Haas <robertmhaas(at)gmail(dot)com> |
|---|---|
| To: | Alvaro Herrera <alvherre(at)commandprompt(dot)com> |
| Cc: | David Fetter <david(at)fetter(dot)org>, Tim Bunce <Tim(dot)Bunce(at)pobox(dot)com>, Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us>, pgsql-bugs(at)postgresql(dot)org |
| Subject: | Re: BUG #5066: plperl issues with perl_destruct() and END blocks |
| Date: | 2009-09-21 17:19:59 |
| Message-ID: | 603c8f070909211019y3ad8b0bfw8a1a2c16ab2714fa@mail.gmail.com |
| Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
| Thread: | |
| Lists: | pgsql-bugs |
On Mon, Sep 21, 2009 at 12:06 PM, Alvaro Herrera
<alvherre(at)commandprompt(dot)com> wrote:
> David Fetter escribió:
>
>> Taken literally, that would mean, "the last action before the backend
>> exits," but at least to me, that sounds troubling for the same reasons
>> that "end of transaction" triggers do. What happens when there are
>> two different END blocks in a session?
>
> The manual is clear that both are executed.
>
>> 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?
It seems pretty reasonable that it would. The intention of DISCARD
ALL is to completely reset the entire session.
...Robert
| From | Date | Subject | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Next Message | Robert Haas | 2009-09-21 17:22:29 | Re: BUG #5053: domain constraints still leak |
| Previous Message | Alvaro Herrera | 2009-09-21 17:06:17 | Re: BUG #5066: plperl issues with perl_destruct() and END blocks |