Re: why does plperl cache functions using just a bool for is_trigger
От | Alex Hunsaker |
---|---|
Тема | Re: why does plperl cache functions using just a bool for is_trigger |
Дата | |
Msg-id | AANLkTin9odCgcADVzet4di+9RiKdVWwHPkw5g4JG=jkM@mail.gmail.com обсуждение исходный текст |
Ответ на | Re: why does plperl cache functions using just a bool for is_trigger (Tom Lane <tgl@sss.pgh.pa.us>) |
Ответы |
Re: why does plperl cache functions using just a bool for is_trigger
Re: why does plperl cache functions using just a bool for is_trigger |
Список | pgsql-hackers |
On Mon, Nov 1, 2010 at 09:28, Tom Lane <tgl@sss.pgh.pa.us> wrote: > I think the crash is dependent on the fact that the function is created > and called in the same session. That means the validator gets called on > it first, and the validator not unreasonably assumes istrigger = true, > and then it calls compile_plperl_function which sets up a cache entry > on that basis. So then when the "regular" call comes along, it tries > to reuse the cache entry in the other style. Kaboom. The other Kaboom happens if the trigger gets called as a trigger first and then directly. >>> There is a check so that trigger functions can not be called as plain >>> functions... I think just moving that up... > No, that is just moving a test that only needs to be done once into a > place where it has to be done every time. You might as well argue that > we shouldn't cache any of the setup but just redo it all every time. Huh? I might try and argue that if the new test was more complex than 2 compares :P. In-fact the way it stands now we uselessly grab the functions pg_proc entry in the common case. Would you object to trying to clean that up across all pls? Im thinking add an is_trigger or context to each proc_desc, then check that in the corresponding handlers. While im at it get rid of at least one SysCache lookup. Thoughts? We can still keep the is_trigger bool in the hash key, as you said below it is a good safety feature. I just wish the logic was spelled out a bit more. Maybe im alone here. > It's also the same way > that the other three PLs do things, and I see no good excuse for plperl > to do things differently here. Im all in favor of keeping things between the pls as close as possible. Speaking of which, pltcl stores the trigger reloid instead of a flag (it also uses tg_reloid in the internal proname). It seems a tad excessive to have one function *per* trigger table. I looked through the history to see if there was some reason, it goes all the way back to the initial commit. I assume its this way because it copied plpgsql, which needs it as the rowtype might be different per table. pltcl should not have that issue. Find attached a patch to clean that up and make it match the other pls (err um plperl). It passes its regression tests and some additional limited testing. Thoughts?
Вложения
В списке pgsql-hackers по дате отправления: