Andrew Dunstan <andrew(at)dunslane(dot)net> writes:
> Tom Lane wrote:
>> Indeed, AFAICS the major *point* of these additions is to allow people
>> to insert unknown other functionality that is likely to interact
>> with the rest of the backend; a prospect that doesn't make me feel
>> better about it.
> No. The major use case we've seen for END blocks is to allow a profiler
> to write its data out. That should have zero interaction with the rest
> of the backend.
Really? We've found that gprof, for instance, doesn't exactly have
"zero interaction with the rest of the backend" --- there's actually
a couple of different bits in there to help it along, including a
behavioral change during shutdown. I rather doubt that Perl profilers
would turn out much different.
But in any case, I don't believe for a moment that profiling is the only
or even the largest use to which people would try to put this.
regards, tom lane
In response to
pgsql-hackers by date
|Next:||From: Heikki Linnakangas||Date: 2010-01-27 16:38:00|
|Subject: Re: testing cvs HEAD - HS/SR - missing file|
|Previous:||From: Andrew Dunstan||Date: 2010-01-27 16:23:18|
|Subject: Re: Add on_perl_init and proper destruction to plperl [PATCH]|