Re: BUG #5066: plperl issues with perl_destruct() and END blocks
От | Alvaro Herrera |
---|---|
Тема | Re: BUG #5066: plperl issues with perl_destruct() and END blocks |
Дата | |
Msg-id | 20090921170617.GL29793@alvh.no-ip.org обсуждение исходный текст |
Ответ на | Re: BUG #5066: plperl issues with perl_destruct() and END blocks (David Fetter <david@fetter.org>) |
Ответы |
Re: BUG #5066: plperl issues with perl_destruct() and END
blocks
|
Список | pgsql-bugs |
David Fetter escribió: > On Mon, Sep 21, 2009 at 12:06:30PM -0400, Alvaro Herrera wrote: > > David Fetter escribió: > > > > > Taken literally, that would mean, "the last action before the > > > backend exits," but at least to me, that sounds troubling for the > > > same reasons that "end of transaction" triggers do. What happens > > > when there are two different END blocks in a session? > > > > The manual is clear that both are executed. > > So it is, but does order matter, and if so, how would PostgreSQL know? The fine manual saith You may have multiple "END" blocks within a file--they will execute in reverse order of definition; that is: last in, first out (LIFO). But then, why would we care? We just call the destructor and Perl ensures that the blocks are called in the right order. -- Alvaro Herrera http://www.CommandPrompt.com/ The PostgreSQL Company - Command Prompt, Inc.
В списке pgsql-bugs по дате отправления: