On Tue, Sep 22, 2009 at 10:13:24AM -0400, Tom Lane wrote:
Another point that comes to mind is shared_preload_libraries: if plperl
is loaded once in the postmaster, it seems entirely likely that the same
END block would be executed in multiple backends after having been
loaded only once.
On Mon, Sep 21, 2009 at 7:30 PM, Tom Lane t...@sss.pgh.pa.us wrote:
David Fetter da...@fetter.org writes:
On Mon, Sep 21, 2009 at 12:06:30PM -0400, Alvaro Herrera wrote:
With connection poolers, backends can last quite awhile. Is it OK
for the END block to run hours after the rest of the
Robert Haas robertmh...@gmail.com writes:
If the changes are simple, as Tim seems to believe, exactly what do we
lose by doing this?
It's not simple. There are any number of issues that Tim has not
addressed. The most obvious: *his* use case might not require database
access in an END block,
On Tue, Sep 22, 2009 at 10:13 AM, Tom Lane t...@sss.pgh.pa.us wrote:
Robert Haas robertmh...@gmail.com writes:
If the changes are simple, as Tim seems to believe, exactly what do we
lose by doing this?
It's not simple. There are any number of issues that Tim has not
addressed. The most
On Mon, Sep 21, 2009 at 11:05:43AM +0100, Tim Bunce wrote:
On Sun, Sep 20, 2009 at 10:00:01PM -0400, Alvaro Herrera wrote:
There's a definitional problem here however. When should we call the
destructor? My impression is that it should happen when the calling
query terminates, not when
David Fetter escribió:
Taken literally, that would mean, the last action before the backend
exits, but at least to me, that sounds troubling for the same reasons
that end of transaction triggers do. What happens when there are
two different END blocks in a session?
The manual is clear that
On Mon, Sep 21, 2009 at 12:06:30PM -0400, Alvaro Herrera wrote:
David Fetter escribió:
Taken literally, that would mean, the last action before the
backend exits, but at least to me, that sounds troubling for the
same reasons that end of transaction triggers do. What happens
when there
David Fetter escribió:
On Mon, Sep 21, 2009 at 12:06:30PM -0400, Alvaro Herrera wrote:
David Fetter escribió:
Taken literally, that would mean, the last action before the
backend exits, but at least to me, that sounds troubling for the
same reasons that end of transaction triggers
On Mon, Sep 21, 2009 at 12:06 PM, Alvaro Herrera
alvhe...@commandprompt.com wrote:
David Fetter escribió:
Taken literally, that would mean, the last action before the backend
exits, but at least to me, that sounds troubling for the same reasons
that end of transaction triggers do. What
On Mon, Sep 21, 2009 at 01:06:17PM -0400, Alvaro Herrera wrote:
David Fetter escribió:
On Mon, Sep 21, 2009 at 12:06:30PM -0400, Alvaro Herrera wrote:
David Fetter escribió:
Taken literally, that would mean, the last action before the
backend exits, but at least to me, that
On Mon, Sep 21, 2009 at 2:17 PM, David Fetter da...@fetter.org wrote:
On Mon, Sep 21, 2009 at 01:06:17PM -0400, Alvaro Herrera wrote:
David Fetter escribió:
On Mon, Sep 21, 2009 at 12:06:30PM -0400, Alvaro Herrera wrote:
David Fetter escribió:
Taken literally, that would mean, the
On Mon, Sep 21, 2009 at 02:28:11PM -0400, Robert Haas wrote:
On Mon, Sep 21, 2009 at 2:17 PM, David Fetter da...@fetter.org wrote:
On Mon, Sep 21, 2009 at 01:06:17PM -0400, Alvaro Herrera wrote:
David Fetter escribió:
On Mon, Sep 21, 2009 at 12:06:30PM -0400, Alvaro Herrera wrote:
David Fetter escribió:
On Mon, Sep 21, 2009 at 01:06:17PM -0400, Alvaro Herrera wrote:
The fine manual saith
You may have multiple END blocks within a file--they will
execute in reverse order of definition; that is: last in, first
out (LIFO).
But then, why would we
On Mon, Sep 21, 2009 at 3:08 PM, Alvaro Herrera
alvhe...@commandprompt.com wrote:
David Fetter escribió:
On Mon, Sep 21, 2009 at 01:06:17PM -0400, Alvaro Herrera wrote:
The fine manual saith
You may have multiple END blocks within a file--they will
execute in reverse order of
David Fetter da...@fetter.org writes:
On Mon, Sep 21, 2009 at 12:06:30PM -0400, Alvaro Herrera wrote:
With connection poolers, backends can last quite awhile. Is it OK
for the END block to run hours after the rest of the code?
This is an interesting point -- should END blocks be called on
On Sat, Sep 19, 2009 at 11:43:26PM -0400, Tom Lane wrote:
Robert Haas robertmh...@gmail.com writes:
On Sat, Sep 19, 2009 at 3:53 PM, Tom Lane t...@sss.pgh.pa.us wrote:
Tim Bunce tim.bu...@pobox.com writes:
The plperl implementation doesn't call perl_destruct() during server
shutdown.
There's a definitional problem here however. When should we call the
destructor? My impression is that it should happen when the calling
query terminates, not when the backend shuts down. I'm sure this will
cause other issues -- for example %_SHARED will be destroyed way too
early.
--
Alvaro
The following bug has been logged online:
Bug reference: 5066
Logged by: Tim Bunce
Email address: tim.bu...@pobox.com
PostgreSQL version: 8.4.1
Operating system: darwin
Description:plperl issues with perl_destruct() and END blocks
Details:
The plperl implementation
Tim Bunce tim.bu...@pobox.com writes:
The plperl implementation doesn't call perl_destruct() during server
shutdown.
Who cares? The process is going away anyway.
regards, tom lane
--
Sent via pgsql-bugs mailing list (pgsql-bugs@postgresql.org)
To make changes to your
On Sat, Sep 19, 2009 at 3:53 PM, Tom Lane t...@sss.pgh.pa.us wrote:
Tim Bunce tim.bu...@pobox.com writes:
The plperl implementation doesn't call perl_destruct() during server
shutdown.
Who cares? The process is going away anyway.
END {} blocks can execute arbitrary code. Perl users will
20 matches
Mail list logo
