From: | Tim Bunce <Tim(dot)Bunce(at)pobox(dot)com> |
---|---|
To: | Alex Hunsaker <badalex(at)gmail(dot)com> |
Cc: | Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us>, Andrew Dunstan <andrew(at)dunslane(dot)net>, Tim Bunce <Tim(dot)Bunce(at)pobox(dot)com>, pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org |
Subject: | Re: Add on_perl_init and proper destruction to plperl [PATCH] |
Date: | 2010-01-27 10:07:44 |
Message-ID: | 20100127100744.GD713@timac.local |
Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
Thread: | |
Lists: | pgsql-hackers |
On Wed, Jan 27, 2010 at 12:46:42AM -0700, Alex Hunsaker wrote:
> On Tue, Jan 26, 2010 at 23:14, Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us> wrote:
> > Andrew Dunstan <andrew(at)dunslane(dot)net> writes:
> >> Tim Bunce wrote:
> >>> - Added plperl.on_perl_init GUC for DBA use (PGC_SIGHUP)
> >>> SPI functions are not available when the code is run.
> >>>
> >>> - Added normal interpreter destruction behaviour
> >>> END blocks, if any, are run then objects are
> >>> destroyed, calling their DESTROY methods, if any.
> >>> SPI functions will die if called at this time.
> >
> >> So, are there still objections to applying this patch?
> >
> > Yes.
>
> FWIW the atexit scares me to.
In what way, specifically?
I understand concerns about interacting with the database, so the
patch ensures that any use of spi functions throws an exception.
I don't recall any other concrete concerns.
Specifically, how is code that starts executing at the end of a session
different in risk to code that starts executing before the end of a session?
DO $$ while (1) { } $$ language plperl;
Tim.
From | Date | Subject | |
---|---|---|---|
Next Message | Fujii Masao | 2010-01-27 10:46:36 | Re: testing cvs HEAD - HS/SR - missing file |
Previous Message | Heikki Linnakangas | 2010-01-27 10:05:53 | Re: testing cvs HEAD - HS/SR - missing file |