Re: First feature patch for plperl - draft [PATCH]

From: Tim Bunce <Tim(dot)Bunce(at)pobox(dot)com>
To: Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us>
Cc: Robert Haas <robertmhaas(at)gmail(dot)com>, "David E(dot) Wheeler" <david(at)kineticode(dot)com>, Tim Bunce <Tim(dot)Bunce(at)pobox(dot)com>, pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org
Subject: Re: First feature patch for plperl - draft [PATCH]
Date: 2009-12-04 19:40:18
Message-ID: 20091204194018.GC89699@timac.local
Views: Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email
Thread:
Lists: pgsql-hackers

On Fri, Dec 04, 2009 at 02:05:28PM -0500, Tom Lane wrote:
> Robert Haas <robertmhaas(at)gmail(dot)com> writes:
> > So, do we look for another way to provide the functionality besides
> > having a GUC, or is the functionality itself bad?
>
> I don't think we want random Perl code running inside the postmaster,
> no matter what the API to cause it is. I might hold my nose for "on
> load" code if it can only run in backends, though I still say that
> it's a badly designed concept because of the uncertainty about who
> will run what when.

Robert's comparison with mod_perl is very apt. Preloading code gives
dramatic performance gains in production situations where there's a
significant codebase and connections are frequent.

The docs for plperl.on_perl_init could include a section relating to
it's use with shared_preload_libraries. That could document any issues
and caveats you feel are important.

Tim.

In response to

Responses

Browse pgsql-hackers by date

  From Date Subject
Next Message Bruce Momjian 2009-12-04 20:00:49 Re: Block-level CRC checks
Previous Message Dave Page 2009-12-04 19:36:11 Re: PostgreSQL Release Support Policy