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?
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
In response to
pgsql-bugs by date
|Next:||From: Alvaro Herrera||Date: 2009-09-21 17:06:17|
|Subject: Re: BUG #5066: plperl issues with perl_destruct() and END
|Previous:||From: Alvaro Herrera||Date: 2009-09-21 16:49:22|
|Subject: Re: Drop schema cascade fails since postgresql 8.4|