| From: | David Fetter <david(at)fetter(dot)org> |
|---|---|
| To: | Alvaro Herrera <alvherre(at)commandprompt(dot)com> |
| 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 16:53:27 |
| Message-ID: | 20090921165327.GJ31599@fetter.org |
| Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
| Thread: | |
| Lists: | pgsql-bugs |
On Mon, Sep 21, 2009 at 12:06:30PM -0400, Alvaro Herrera wrote:
> 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.
So it is, but does order matter, and if so, how would PostgreSQL know?
> > 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?
ENOCLUE
Cheers,
David.
--
David Fetter <david(at)fetter(dot)org> http://fetter.org/
Phone: +1 415 235 3778 AIM: dfetter666 Yahoo!: dfetter
Skype: davidfetter XMPP: david(dot)fetter(at)gmail(dot)com
Remember to vote!
Consider donating to Postgres: http://www.postgresql.org/about/donate
| From | Date | Subject | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Next Message | Alvaro Herrera | 2009-09-21 17:06:17 | Re: BUG #5066: plperl issues with perl_destruct() and END blocks |
| Previous Message | Alvaro Herrera | 2009-09-21 16:49:22 | Re: Drop schema cascade fails since postgresql 8.4 |