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: Alex Hunsaker <badalex(at)gmail(dot)com>
Cc: Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us>, Tim Bunce <Tim(dot)Bunce(at)pobox(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 19:31:37
Message-ID: 87D29FD3-A668-46E2-98C4-F386F26E8069@pgexperts.com (view raw or flat)
Thread:
Lists: pgsql-bugs
On Feb 25, 2010, at 11:29 AM, Alex Hunsaker wrote:

> Well that's the thing, probably by what I described below that. Namely
> get something working for 9.1 and after we know its good and solid see
> if we can back patch it.  Unfeasible?  If its really really simple and
> straight forward maybe we can find a -commiter willing to commit it
> sooner.  But I'm dubious.  I think the feeling between me and Tim is
> patching postgres is a last resort...  Maybe if its to fix both sort
> {} and this it might be worth it. (That's at least how I parsed what
> you said :) ).  Ill see if I can figure something out via straight
> Safe tonight.

I think Tom meant, what sorts of changes to PostgreSQL do you think might solve the problem?

Best,

David


In response to

Responses

pgsql-bugs by date

Next:From: Robert HaasDate: 2010-02-25 19:47:56
Subject: Re: BUG #5338: PG_DUMP fails due to invalid adnum value
Previous:From: Alex HunsakerDate: 2010-02-25 19:29:33
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