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: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | 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 |