On Mon, Sep 21, 2009 at 7:30 PM, Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us> wrote:
> David Fetter <david(at)fetter(dot)org> writes:
>> On Mon, Sep 21, 2009 at 12:06:30PM -0400, Alvaro Herrera wrote:
>>>> 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?
> And in the same vein, should they be called inside a transaction,
> or not? What if they fail?
> I don't see any reason whatsoever that we couldn't just document this
> as a Perl feature not supported in plperl. If you do something like
> creating threads inside plperl, we're going to give you the raspberry
> when you complain about it breaking. END blocks can perfectly well
> go into the same category.
If the changes are simple, as Tim seems to believe, exactly what do we
lose by doing this?
In response to
pgsql-bugs by date
|Next:||From: nanda gopal||Date: 2009-09-22 14:10:17|
|Subject: Requesting the Revision History|
|Previous:||From: Amit Khandekar||Date: 2009-09-22 12:16:58|
|Subject: BUG #5072: User trying to drop an internally dependent object crashes server|