Tim Bunce <tim.bu...@pobox.com> writes:
> I didn't get any significant feedback from the earlier draft so here's
> the finished 'feature patch 1' for plperl. (This builds on my earlier
> plperl refactoring patch, and the follow-on ppport.h patch.)
Just looking over this patch, I don't think it's nearly robust enough
against initialization failures. The original code wasn't very good
about that either, but that was (more or less) okay because it was
executing predetermined, pretested code that we really don't expect to
fail. I think the standard has to be a *lot* higher if we are going to
execute user-supplied perl code there. You need to make sure that
things are left in a reasonably consistent, safe state if an error
occurs.
Along the same line, there needs to be more effort put into the errors
that can be thrown when one of these failures happen. The current
messages don't follow our style guidelines very well, and aren't exposed
for translation.
regards, tom lane
--
Sent via pgsql-hackers mailing list (pgsql-hackers@postgresql.org)
To make changes to your subscription:
http://www.postgresql.org/mailpref/pgsql-hackers
