| From: | Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us> |
|---|---|
| To: | Andrew Dunstan <andrew(at)dunslane(dot)net> |
| Cc: | Andrej Ricnik-Bay <andrej(dot)groups(at)gmail(dot)com>, "Jim C(dot) Nasby" <jim(at)nasby(dot)net>, Jeff Trout <threshar(at)real(dot)jefftrout(dot)com>, Martijn van Oosterhout <kleptog(at)svana(dot)org>, PostgreSQL-development <pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org> |
| Subject: | Re: plperl/plperlu interaction |
| Date: | 2006-10-26 21:24:37 |
| Message-ID: | 25670.1161897877@sss.pgh.pa.us |
| Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
| Thread: | |
| Lists: | pgsql-hackers |
Andrew Dunstan <andrew(at)dunslane(dot)net> writes:
> You can also examine the output from perl -V
I think we've already established that we won't be able to ignore the
case of not having support for multiple perl interpreters :-(
So it seems we have these choices:
1. Do nothing (document it as a feature not a bug)
2. Support separate interpreters if possible, do nothing if not
(still needs documentation)
3. Support separate interpreters if possible, refuse to run both plperl
and plperlu functions in the same backend if not.
Any other compromises possible?
regards, tom lane
| From | Date | Subject | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Next Message | Tom Lane | 2006-10-26 21:37:47 | Re: GUC description cleanup |
| Previous Message | Tom Lane | 2006-10-26 21:21:26 | Re: Deadlock with pg_dump? |