| From: | "David E(dot) Wheeler" <david(dot)wheeler(at)pgexperts(dot)com> |
|---|---|
| To: | Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us> |
| Cc: | Alex Hunsaker <badalex(at)gmail(dot)com>, Tim Bunce <Tim(dot)Bunce(at)pobox(dot)com>, pgsql-bugs(at)postgresql(dot)org |
| Subject: | Re: New PL/Perl failure with Safe 2.2x due to recursion (8.x & 9.0) |
| Date: | 2010-02-25 03:38:17 |
| Message-ID: | 4C6E94ED-11A0-41F8-8E0E-779417DCF0DE@pgexperts.com |
| Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
| Thread: | |
| Lists: | pgsql-bugs |
On Feb 24, 2010, at 7:19 PM, Tom Lane wrote:
>> ISTM the easiest and safest fix would be to not allow recursive plperl
>> creations. You could still call plperl functions within functions,
>> just not if they are not defined. This limitation really blows
>
> That's the understatement of the month. 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.
Exactly what I was thinking. This "fix" is right out.
Best,
David
| From | Date | Subject | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Next Message | Alex Hunsaker | 2010-02-25 03:48:27 | Re: New PL/Perl failure with Safe 2.2x due to recursion (8.x & 9.0) |
| Previous Message | Alex Hunsaker | 2010-02-25 03:37:59 | Re: New PL/Perl failure with Safe 2.2x due to recursion (8.x & 9.0) |