Re: New PL/Perl failure with Safe 2.2x due to recursion (8.x & 9.0)

From: Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us>
To: Alex Hunsaker <badalex(at)gmail(dot)com>
Cc: Tim Bunce <Tim(dot)Bunce(at)pobox(dot)com>, pgsql-bugs(at)postgresql(dot)org, "David E(dot) Wheeler" <david(dot)wheeler(at)pgexperts(dot)com>
Subject: Re: New PL/Perl failure with Safe 2.2x due to recursion (8.x & 9.0)
Date: 2010-02-25 03:19:30
Message-ID: 18908.1267067970@sss.pgh.pa.us
Views: Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email
Thread:
Lists: pgsql-bugs

Alex Hunsaker <badalex(at)gmail(dot)com> writes:
> ISTM the easiest and safest fix would be to not allow recursive plperl
> creations. You could still call plperl functions within functions,
> just not if they are not defined. This limitation really blows

That's the understatement of the month. What you're saying, IIUC, is
that if function A calls function B via a SPI command, and B wasn't
executed previously in the current session, it would fail? Seems
entirely unacceptable.

regards, tom lane

In response to

Responses

Browse pgsql-bugs by date

  From Date Subject
Next Message Alex Hunsaker 2010-02-25 03:37:59 Re: New PL/Perl failure with Safe 2.2x due to recursion (8.x & 9.0)
Previous Message Alex Hunsaker 2010-02-25 03:00:49 Re: New PL/Perl failure with Safe 2.2x due to recursion (8.x & 9.0)