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 | 7797.1264609682@sss.pgh.pa.us обсуждение исходный текст |
Ответ на | Re: Add on_perl_init and proper destruction to plperl [PATCH] (Andrew Dunstan <andrew@dunslane.net>) |
Ответы |
Re: Add on_perl_init and proper destruction to plperl [PATCH]
Re: Add on_perl_init and proper destruction to plperl [PATCH] |
Список | pgsql-hackers |
Andrew Dunstan <andrew@dunslane.net> writes: > Tom Lane wrote: >> Indeed, AFAICS the major *point* of these additions is to allow people >> to insert unknown other functionality that is likely to interact >> with the rest of the backend; a prospect that doesn't make me feel >> better about it. > No. The major use case we've seen for END blocks is to allow a profiler > to write its data out. That should have zero interaction with the rest > of the backend. Really? We've found that gprof, for instance, doesn't exactly have "zero interaction with the rest of the backend" --- there's actually a couple of different bits in there to help it along, including a behavioral change during shutdown. I rather doubt that Perl profilers would turn out much different. But in any case, I don't believe for a moment that profiling is the only or even the largest use to which people would try to put this. regards, tom lane
В списке pgsql-hackers по дате отправления: