| From: | Alvaro Herrera <alvherre(at)commandprompt(dot)com> |
|---|---|
| To: | David Fetter <david(at)fetter(dot)org> |
| Cc: | Tim Bunce <Tim(dot)Bunce(at)pobox(dot)com>, Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us>, Robert Haas <robertmhaas(at)gmail(dot)com>, pgsql-bugs(at)postgresql(dot)org |
| Subject: | Re: BUG #5066: plperl issues with perl_destruct() and END blocks |
| Date: | 2009-09-21 17:06:17 |
| Message-ID: | 20090921170617.GL29793@alvh.no-ip.org |
| Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
| Thread: | |
| Lists: | pgsql-bugs |
David Fetter escribió:
> On Mon, Sep 21, 2009 at 12:06:30PM -0400, Alvaro Herrera wrote:
> > David Fetter escribió:
> >
> > > Taken literally, that would mean, "the last action before the
> > > backend exits," but at least to me, that sounds troubling for the
> > > same reasons that "end of transaction" triggers do. What happens
> > > when there are two different END blocks in a session?
> >
> > The manual is clear that both are executed.
>
> So it is, but does order matter, and if so, how would PostgreSQL know?
The fine manual saith
You may have multiple "END" blocks within a file--they will execute in
reverse order of definition; that is: last in, first out (LIFO).
But then, why would we care? We just call the destructor and Perl
ensures that the blocks are called in the right order.
--
Alvaro Herrera http://www.CommandPrompt.com/
The PostgreSQL Company - Command Prompt, Inc.
| From | Date | Subject | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Next Message | Robert Haas | 2009-09-21 17:19:59 | Re: BUG #5066: plperl issues with perl_destruct() and END blocks |
| Previous Message | David Fetter | 2009-09-21 16:53:27 | Re: BUG #5066: plperl issues with perl_destruct() and END blocks |