Re: Increase pltcl test coverage

From: Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us>
To: Jim Nasby <Jim(dot)Nasby(at)bluetreble(dot)com>
Cc: Pg Hackers <pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org>, Karl Lehenbauer <karl(at)flightaware(dot)com>
Subject: Re: Increase pltcl test coverage
Date: 2017-01-10 01:27:54
Views: Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email
Lists: pgsql-hackers

Jim Nasby <Jim(dot)Nasby(at)bluetreble(dot)com> writes:
> On 1/9/17 5:38 PM, Tom Lane wrote:
>> Yeah. I looked at that but couldn't get terribly excited about it,
>> because AFAICS, Tcl in general is apt to fall over under sufficient
>> memory pressure.

> Though, since a memory error could just as likely come out of tcl, which
> is going to panic us anyway, I guess it doesn't matter.

Exactly. I can't get excited about making our code slower and less
readable if there's only a fifty-fifty chance that doing so avoids a
crash. Tcl users just need to stay far away from OOM conditions.

(If it were a more popular language, maybe there would be reason to
try to push to improve this, but ...)

regards, tom lane

In response to

Browse pgsql-hackers by date

  From Date Subject
Next Message Jim Nasby 2017-01-10 01:39:53 Re: pg_background contrib module proposal
Previous Message Jim Nasby 2017-01-10 01:22:19 Re: RustgreSQL