Re: Add on_perl_init and proper destruction to plperl [PATCH]
От | Tim Bunce |
---|---|
Тема | Re: Add on_perl_init and proper destruction to plperl [PATCH] |
Дата | |
Msg-id | 20100127100744.GD713@timac.local обсуждение исходный текст |
Ответ на | Re: Add on_perl_init and proper destruction to plperl [PATCH] (Alex Hunsaker <badalex@gmail.com>) |
Ответы |
Re: Add on_perl_init and proper destruction to plperl [PATCH]
|
Список | pgsql-hackers |
On Wed, Jan 27, 2010 at 12:46:42AM -0700, Alex Hunsaker wrote: > On Tue, Jan 26, 2010 at 23:14, Tom Lane <tgl@sss.pgh.pa.us> wrote: > > Andrew Dunstan <andrew@dunslane.net> writes: > >> Tim Bunce wrote: > >>> - Added plperl.on_perl_init GUC for DBA use (PGC_SIGHUP) > >>> SPI functions are not available when the code is run. > >>> > >>> - Added normal interpreter destruction behaviour > >>> END blocks, if any, are run then objects are > >>> destroyed, calling their DESTROY methods, if any. > >>> SPI functions will die if called at this time. > > > >> So, are there still objections to applying this patch? > > > > Yes. > > FWIW the atexit scares me to. In what way, specifically? I understand concerns about interacting with the database, so the patch ensures that any use of spi functions throws an exception. I don't recall any other concrete concerns. Specifically, how is code that starts executing at the end of a session different in risk to code that starts executing before the end of a session? DO $$ while (1) { } $$ language plperl; Tim.
В списке pgsql-hackers по дате отправления: