| From: | Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us> |
|---|---|
| To: | Hannu Krosing <hannu(at)skype(dot)net> |
| Cc: | python-list(at)python(dot)org, "pgsql-patches(at)postgresql(dot)org" <pgsql-patches(at)postgresql(dot)org>, "pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org" <pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org> |
| Subject: | Re: [HACKERS] Iterating generator from C (PostgreSQL's pl/python RETUN |
| Date: | 2006-05-15 21:21:32 |
| Message-ID: | 14388.1147728092@sss.pgh.pa.us |
| Views: | Whole Thread | Raw Message | Download mbox | Resend email |
| Thread: | |
| Lists: | pgsql-hackers pgsql-patches |
Hannu Krosing <hannu(at)skype(dot)net> writes:
>> Sven Suursoho wrote:
>>> As for testing in actual pl/python build environment, we had objections from
>>> leading postgresql Tom Lane that even if we do test it at build time,
>>> a determined DBA may substitute a buggy python.so later and still crash her DB instance.
The above is a straw-man depiction of my point. What I said was that just
because python is up-to-date on the system where plpython is *compiled*
does not mean it'll be up-to-date on the system where plpython is *used*.
With the increasing popularity of prebuilt packages (rpm, deb, etc),
I think it's folly to use a build-time check for this.
regards, tom lane
| From | Date | Subject | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Next Message | Simon Riggs | 2006-05-15 21:23:00 | Re: does wal archiving block the current client connection? |
| Previous Message | Hannu Krosing | 2006-05-15 20:33:10 | Re: Iterating generator from C (PostgreSQL's pl/python RETUN |
| From | Date | Subject | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Next Message | Hannu Krosing | 2006-05-15 22:12:10 | Re: [HACKERS] Iterating generator from C (PostgreSQL's |
| Previous Message | Hannu Krosing | 2006-05-15 20:33:10 | Re: Iterating generator from C (PostgreSQL's pl/python RETUN |