Skip site navigation (1) Skip section navigation (2)

Re: New PL/Perl failure with Safe 2.2x due to recursion (8.x & 9.0)

From: "David E(dot) Wheeler" <david(dot)wheeler(at)pgexperts(dot)com>
To: Tim Bunce <Tim(dot)Bunce(at)pobox(dot)com>
Cc: Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us>, Alex Hunsaker <badalex(at)gmail(dot)com>, pgsql-bugs(at)postgresql(dot)org
Subject: Re: New PL/Perl failure with Safe 2.2x due to recursion (8.x & 9.0)
Date: 2010-02-25 21:06:05
Message-ID: 8192D223-C1BB-4239-8B67-4EA1F0C8934A@pgexperts.com (view raw or flat)
Thread:
Lists: pgsql-bugs
On Feb 25, 2010, at 12:58 PM, Tim Bunce wrote:

>> Which means losing sort $a <=> $b again, alas. Such was always the
>> case in the past, so that might be an okay tradeoff to get recursive
>> calls working again, but I certainly hope that Safe can be updated in
>> the near future to give us both.
>> 
>> There seem to be no good answers here.
> 
> There is one fairly good answer:
> 
> Use a perl that's compiled to support multiplicity but not threads.
> That avoids the sort bug and, as an extra bonus, gives plperl a
> significant speed boost.

That solves the problem with recursion or with $a and $b or both?

I'm happy to rebuild Perl without threads, since I'm not going to use Padre after all. But that won't help the millions who rely on package-supplied Perls, which are nearly always threaded AFAICT.

Best,

David

In response to

Responses

pgsql-bugs by date

Next:From: Tom LaneDate: 2010-02-25 21:06:51
Subject: Re: New PL/Perl failure with Safe 2.2x due to recursion (8.x & 9.0)
Previous:From: Tim BunceDate: 2010-02-25 20:58:14
Subject: Re: New PL/Perl failure with Safe 2.2x due to recursion (8.x & 9.0)

Privacy Policy | About PostgreSQL
Copyright © 1996-2014 The PostgreSQL Global Development Group