Re: Making plpython 2 and 3 coexist a bit better
От | Jim Nasby |
---|---|
Тема | Re: Making plpython 2 and 3 coexist a bit better |
Дата | |
Msg-id | 5693FFC0.8030801@BlueTreble.com обсуждение исходный текст |
Ответ на | Re: Making plpython 2 and 3 coexist a bit better (Tom Lane <tgl@sss.pgh.pa.us>) |
Ответы |
Re: Making plpython 2 and 3 coexist a bit better
|
Список | pgsql-hackers |
On 1/11/16 1:00 PM, Tom Lane wrote: > There's at least one PL/Java implementation that does that. The > interprocess communication overhead is pretty awful, IIRC. Don't know > what they do about nested calls. You'd think that pipes wouldn't be that much overhead... >> >Obviously this is a lot more work than what you're proposing though.:( > Yeah. I think what I'm suggesting is a back-patchable fix, which that > certainly wouldn't be. Yeah, and it sounds like we need one. > The question of whether to do ERROR or FATAL remains open. I'm not sure > I have a strong preference either way. If they both get loaded is there risk of bad data happening? Personally, I'll take a traceable FATAL (or even PANIC) over data corruption every time. But I'm guessing that if you tried to use both you'd pretty immediately end up crashing the backend. -- Jim Nasby, Data Architect, Blue Treble Consulting, Austin TX Experts in Analytics, Data Architecture and PostgreSQL Data in Trouble? Get it in Treble! http://BlueTreble.com
В списке pgsql-hackers по дате отправления: