| From: | Alvaro Herrera <alvherre(at)commandprompt(dot)com> |
|---|---|
| To: | David Fetter <david(at)fetter(dot)org> |
| Cc: | Tim Bunce <Tim(dot)Bunce(at)pobox(dot)com>, Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us>, Robert Haas <robertmhaas(at)gmail(dot)com>, pgsql-bugs(at)postgresql(dot)org |
| Subject: | Re: BUG #5066: plperl issues with perl_destruct() and END blocks |
| Date: | 2009-09-21 16:06:30 |
| Message-ID: | 20090921160630.GF29793@alvh.no-ip.org |
| Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
| Thread: | |
| Lists: | pgsql-bugs |
David Fetter escribió:
> Taken literally, that would mean, "the last action before the backend
> exits," but at least to me, that sounds troubling for the same reasons
> that "end of transaction" triggers do. What happens when there are
> two different END blocks in a session?
The manual is clear that both are executed.
> 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?
--
Alvaro Herrera http://www.CommandPrompt.com/
PostgreSQL Replication, Consulting, Custom Development, 24x7 support
| From | Date | Subject | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Next Message | Bruce Momjian | 2009-09-21 16:31:31 | Re: BUG #5053: domain constraints still leak |
| Previous Message | David Fetter | 2009-09-21 15:51:10 | Re: BUG #5066: plperl issues with perl_destruct() and END blocks |