| 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 21:59:14 |
| Message-ID: | 26136.1161899954@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:
> Tom Lane wrote:
>> 3. Support separate interpreters if possible, refuse to run both plperl
>> and plperlu functions in the same backend if not.
> How would we decide which wins in the third case? "first in" seems
> rather arbitrary. If we went that way I'd probably plump for just
> plperlu to be allowed.
"First used in a given backend" was exactly what I had in mind.
Certainly it wouldn't be perfect, but your proposal seems to be
"disable plperl altogether if no separate-interpreter support",
which seems overly harsh. Especially for someone who doesn't
even want to install plperlu.
regards, tom lane
| From | Date | Subject | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Next Message | Chris Campbell | 2006-10-26 22:11:59 | Re: Deadlock with pg_dump? |
| Previous Message | Andrew Dunstan | 2006-10-26 21:45:09 | Re: plperl/plperlu interaction |