| From: | Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us> |
|---|---|
| To: | Tim Bunce <Tim(dot)Bunce(at)pobox(dot)com> |
| Cc: | Andrew Dunstan <andrew(at)dunslane(dot)net>, Alex Hunsaker <badalex(at)gmail(dot)com>, pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org |
| Subject: | Re: Add on_perl_init and proper destruction to plperl [PATCH] |
| Date: | 2010-01-27 23:33:19 |
| Message-ID: | 16547.1264635199@sss.pgh.pa.us |
| Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
| Thread: | |
| Lists: | pgsql-hackers |
Tim Bunce <Tim(dot)Bunce(at)pobox(dot)com> writes:
> On Wed, Jan 27, 2010 at 11:28:02AM -0500, Tom Lane wrote:
>> Really? We've found that gprof, for instance, doesn't exactly have
>> "zero interaction with the rest of the backend" --- there's actually
>> a couple of different bits in there to help it along, including a
>> behavioral change during shutdown. I rather doubt that Perl profilers
>> would turn out much different.
> Devel::NYTProf (http://blog.timbunce.org/tag/nytprof/) has zero
> interaction with the rest of the backend.
I don't have to read any further than the place where it says "doesn't
work if you call both plperl and plperlu" to realize that that's quite
false. Maybe we have different definitions of what a software
interaction is...
regards, tom lane
| From | Date | Subject | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Next Message | David E. Wheeler | 2010-01-27 23:41:02 | Re: Add on_perl_init and proper destruction to plperl [PATCH] |
| Previous Message | David E. Wheeler | 2010-01-27 23:28:09 | Re: Add on_perl_init and proper destruction to plperl [PATCH] |