On Wed, Jan 27, 2010 at 12:46:42AM -0700, Alex Hunsaker wrote:
> On Tue, Jan 26, 2010 at 23:14, Tom Lane <t...@sss.pgh.pa.us> wrote:
> > Andrew Dunstan <and...@dunslane.net> writes:
> >> Tim Bunce wrote:
> >>> - Added plperl.on_perl_init GUC for DBA use (PGC_SIGHUP)
> >>> SPI functions are not available when the code is run.
> >>>
> >>> - Added normal interpreter destruction behaviour
> >>> END blocks, if any, are run then objects are
> >>> destroyed, calling their DESTROY methods, if any.
> >>> SPI functions will die if called at this time.
> >
> >> So, are there still objections to applying this patch?
> >
> > Yes.
>
> FWIW the atexit scares me to.
In what way, specifically?
I understand concerns about interacting with the database, so the
patch ensures that any use of spi functions throws an exception.
I don't recall any other concrete concerns.
Specifically, how is code that starts executing at the end of a session
different in risk to code that starts executing before the end of a session?
DO $$ while (1) { } $$ language plperl;
Tim.
--
Sent via pgsql-hackers mailing list (pgsql-hackers@postgresql.org)
To make changes to your subscription:
http://www.postgresql.org/mailpref/pgsql-hackers
