| From: | "David E(dot) Wheeler" <david(dot)wheeler(at)pgexperts(dot)com> |
|---|---|
| To: | Tim Bunce <Tim(dot)Bunce(at)pobox(dot)com> |
| Cc: | Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us>, Alex Hunsaker <badalex(at)gmail(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 21:06:05 |
| Message-ID: | 8192D223-C1BB-4239-8B67-4EA1F0C8934A@pgexperts.com |
| Views: | Whole Thread | Raw Message | Download mbox | Resend email |
| Thread: | |
| Lists: | pgsql-bugs |
On Feb 25, 2010, at 12:58 PM, Tim Bunce wrote:
>> Which means losing sort $a <=> $b again, alas. Such was always the
>> case in the past, so that might be an okay tradeoff to get recursive
>> calls working again, but I certainly hope that Safe can be updated in
>> the near future to give us both.
>>
>> There seem to be no good answers here.
>
> There is one fairly good answer:
>
> Use a perl that's compiled to support multiplicity but not threads.
> That avoids the sort bug and, as an extra bonus, gives plperl a
> significant speed boost.
That solves the problem with recursion or with $a and $b or both?
I'm happy to rebuild Perl without threads, since I'm not going to use Padre after all. But that won't help the millions who rely on package-supplied Perls, which are nearly always threaded AFAICT.
Best,
David
| From | Date | Subject | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Next Message | Tom Lane | 2010-02-25 21:06:51 | Re: New PL/Perl failure with Safe 2.2x due to recursion (8.x & 9.0) |
| Previous Message | Tim Bunce | 2010-02-25 20:58:14 | Re: New PL/Perl failure with Safe 2.2x due to recursion (8.x & 9.0) |