Re: why does plperl cache functions using just a bool for is_trigger

From: "David E(dot) Wheeler" <david(at)kineticode(dot)com>
To: Alex Hunsaker <badalex(at)gmail(dot)com>
Cc: Jan Urbański <wulczer(at)wulczer(dot)org>, Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us>, Andrew Dunstan <andrew(at)dunslane(dot)net>, Postgres - Hackers <pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org>
Subject: Re: why does plperl cache functions using just a bool for is_trigger
Date: 2010-11-03 21:15:21
Message-ID: B5A12283-CD39-4374-91D8-FDF299D8197A@kineticode.com
Views: Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email
Thread:
Lists: pgsql-hackers

On Nov 3, 2010, at 2:06 PM, Alex Hunsaker wrote:

>> try:
>> plpy.execute("insert into foo values(1)")
>> except plpy.UniqueViolation, e:
>> plpy.notice("Ooops, you got yourself a SQLSTATE %d", e.sqlstate)
>
> Ouuu <googly eyes>.
>
> [ now that eval { }, thanks to Tim Bunce, works with plperl it should
> be possible to do something similar there as well. Just noting the
> possibility... not volunteering :) ]

/me wants a global $dbh that mimics the DBI interface but just uses SPI under the hood. Not volunteering, either…

David

In response to

Responses

Browse pgsql-hackers by date

  From Date Subject
Next Message Alvaro Herrera 2010-11-03 21:18:32 Re: ALTER OBJECT any_name SET SCHEMA name
Previous Message Alex Hunsaker 2010-11-03 21:06:23 Re: why does plperl cache functions using just a bool for is_trigger