| From: | Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us> |
|---|---|
| To: | Andrew Dunstan <andrew(at)dunslane(dot)net> |
| Cc: | Tim Bunce <Tim(dot)Bunce(at)pobox(dot)com>, Alex Hunsaker <badalex(at)gmail(dot)com>, Pgsql Hackers <pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org>, Hannu Krosing <hannu(at)2ndQuadrant(dot)com> |
| Subject: | Re: plperl crash with Debian 6 (64 bit), pl/perlu, libwww and https |
| Date: | 2011-08-10 17:27:18 |
| Message-ID: | 14017.1312997238@sss.pgh.pa.us |
| Views: | Whole Thread | Raw Message | Download mbox | Resend email |
| Thread: | |
| Lists: | pgsql-hackers |
Andrew Dunstan <andrew(at)dunslane(dot)net> writes:
> On 08/09/2011 04:32 PM, Tom Lane wrote:
>> [ shrug... ] Installing a perl module that mucks with the signal
>> handlers is in the "don't do that" category. A kluge such as you
>> suggest will not get it out of that category; all it will do is add
>> useless overhead for people who are following the rules.
> Well, knowing what a given module might do isn't always easy (see
> below). I don't much like saying to people "I told you so", especially
> when following the advice isn't necessarily straightforward.
I'm not thrilled with it either, but since we have no proposed patch
that would actually make it *safe* for perl modules to muck with the
signal handlers, I see no other alternative. A patch that simply makes
it a shade less unsafe isn't really an improvement, especially when it
has other disadvantages.
regards, tom lane
| From | Date | Subject | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Next Message | Tom Lane | 2011-08-10 17:45:28 | Re: Enforcing that all WAL has been replayed after restoring from backup |
| Previous Message | David E. Wheeler | 2011-08-10 17:03:58 | Re: plperl crash with Debian 6 (64 bit), pl/perlu, libwww and https |