Re: Curious plperl behavior
От | Richard Huxton |
---|---|
Тема | Re: Curious plperl behavior |
Дата | |
Msg-id | 4B859867.2070106@archonet.com обсуждение исходный текст |
Ответ на | Re: Curious plperl behavior (Tom Lane <tgl@sss.pgh.pa.us>) |
Ответы |
Re: Curious plperl behavior
|
Список | pgsql-general |
On 24/02/10 20:55, Tom Lane wrote: > Jeff<threshar@threshar.is-a-geek.com> writes: >> [ oracular excerpt from perlref ] > > So is this just a dark corner of Perl, or is plperl doing something to > help you get confused? In particular, do we need to add anything to > the plperl documentation? We're not trying to explain Perl to people, > but if plperl is doing something that contributes to this, maybe it > requires documentation. It is documented. http://www.postgresql.org/docs/8.4/static/plperl-funcs.html Note: The use of named nested subroutines is dangerous in Perl, especially if they refer to lexical variables in the enclosing scope. Because a PL/Perl function is wrapped in a subroutine, any named subroutine you create will be nested. In general, it is far safer to create anonymous subroutines which you call via a coderef. See the perldiag man page for more details. There's two ways to read that: 1. "Dangerous in Perl" - well, what isn't? 2. "Dangerous in Perl" - blimey, if they think it's dangerous, it must make lion-wrestling safe. -- Richard Huxton Archonet Ltd
В списке pgsql-general по дате отправления: