Re: Add on_perl_init and proper destruction to plperl [PATCH]
От | Tom Lane |
---|---|
Тема | Re: Add on_perl_init and proper destruction to plperl [PATCH] |
Дата | |
Msg-id | 14986.1264693173@sss.pgh.pa.us обсуждение исходный текст |
Ответ на | Re: Add on_perl_init and proper destruction to plperl [PATCH] (Tim Bunce <Tim.Bunce@pobox.com>) |
Ответы |
Re: Add on_perl_init and proper destruction to plperl
[PATCH]
|
Список | pgsql-hackers |
Tim Bunce <Tim.Bunce@pobox.com> writes: > On Wed, Jan 27, 2010 at 06:27:50PM -0500, Tom Lane wrote: >> An advantage of on_proc_exit from your end is that it should allow >> you to not have to try to prevent the END blocks from using SPI, >> as that would still be perfectly functional when your callback >> gets called. (Starting a new transaction would be a good idea >> though, cf Async_UnlistenOnExit.) > I'm surprised that you're suggesting that END block should be allowed to > interact with the backend via SPI. It seems to go against what you've > said previously about code running at shutdown. I think you have completely misunderstood what I'm complaining about. What I'm not happy about is executing operations at a point where they're likely to be ill-defined because the code is in the wrong state. In an early on_proc_exit hook, the system is for all practical purposes still fully functional, and so I don't see a reason for an arbitrary restriction on what the END blocks should be able to do. (Or, to repeat myself in a different way: the no-SPI restriction is utterly useless to guard against my real concerns anyway. I see no point in it either here or elsewhere.) regards, tom lane
В списке pgsql-hackers по дате отправления: