Re: First feature patch for plperl - draft [PATCH]

On Dec 4, 2009, at 11:05 AM, Tom Lane wrote:

>> So, do we look for another way to provide the functionality besides
>> having a GUC, or is the functionality itself bad?
>
> I don't think we want random Perl code running inside the postmaster,
> no matter what the API to cause it is.  I might hold my nose for "on
> load" code if it can only run in backends, though I still say that
> it's a badly designed concept because of the uncertainty about who
> will run what when.  Shlib load time is not an event that ought to be
> user-visible.

So only the child processes would be allowed to load the code? That could make connections even slower if there's a lot
ofPerl code to be added, though that's also the issue we have today. I guess I could live with that, though I'd rather
havesuch code shared across processes. 

If it's a badly designed concept, do you have any ideas that are less bad?

Best,

David