Re: plperl vs LC_COLLATE (was Re: Possible savepoint bug)

Поиск
Список
Период
Сортировка
От Tom Lane
Тема Re: plperl vs LC_COLLATE (was Re: Possible savepoint bug)
Дата
Msg-id 17797.1135788085@sss.pgh.pa.us
обсуждение исходный текст
Ответ на plperl vs LC_COLLATE (was Re: Possible savepoint bug)  (Tom Lane <tgl@sss.pgh.pa.us>)
Ответы Re: plperl vs LC_COLLATE (was Re: Possible savepoint bug)  ("Andrew Dunstan" <andrew@dunslane.net>)
Список pgsql-hackers
Дерево обсуждения 
I wrote:
> So the mere act of defining a plperl function, even with
> check_function_bodies = false, is sufficient to send control through
> that bit of libperl code that does setlocale(LC_ALL, "").  Ugh.
> This is much worse than I thought.

It seems one ingredient in this is that the plperl function validator
fails to honor check_function_bodies, and hence is calling libperl
anyway.  I wonder if that explains the sudden rise in incidents in 8.1?
        regards, tom lane

В списке pgsql-hackers по дате отправления:

Предыдущее
От: Tom Lane
Дата:
Сообщение: plperl vs LC_COLLATE (was Re: Possible savepoint bug)
Следующее
От: "Andrew Dunstan"
Дата:
Сообщение: Re: plperl vs LC_COLLATE (was Re: Possible savepoint bug)