| From: | Alex Hunsaker <badalex(at)gmail(dot)com> |
|---|---|
| To: | Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us> |
| Cc: | Tim Bunce <Tim(dot)Bunce(at)pobox(dot)com>, pgsql-bugs(at)postgresql(dot)org, "David E(dot) Wheeler" <david(dot)wheeler(at)pgexperts(dot)com> |
| Subject: | Re: New PL/Perl failure with Safe 2.2x due to recursion (8.x & 9.0) |
| Date: | 2010-02-25 03:37:59 |
| Message-ID: | 34d269d41002241937x5788caa1h5655d806ea422645@mail.gmail.com |
| Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
| Thread: | |
| Lists: | pgsql-bugs |
On Wed, Feb 24, 2010 at 20:19, Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us> wrote:
>What you're saying, IIUC, is
> that if function A calls function B via a SPI command, and B wasn't
> executed previously in the current session, it would fail? Seems
> entirely unacceptable.
Yep, thats right :(. Thanks, thats exactly the kind of feedback I
wanted to get.
I think we will see if we can get this fixed on the Safe/perl side then.
Tim, I think unless the Safe::Hole stuff is really straight forward it
seems like (as we previously agreed) the best change is to revert safe
to its old behavior for now.
| From | Date | Subject | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Next Message | David E. Wheeler | 2010-02-25 03:38:17 | Re: New PL/Perl failure with Safe 2.2x due to recursion (8.x & 9.0) |
| Previous Message | Tom Lane | 2010-02-25 03:19:30 | Re: New PL/Perl failure with Safe 2.2x due to recursion (8.x & 9.0) |