Re: Wishlist of PL/Perl Enhancements for PostgreSQL 8.5

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>, "pgsql-general(at)postgresql(dot)org" <pgsql-general(at)postgresql(dot)org>
Subject: Re: Wishlist of PL/Perl Enhancements for PostgreSQL 8.5
Date: 2009-10-06 13:34:52
Message-ID: 20091006133452.GB5929@alvh.no-ip.org
Views: Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email
Thread:
Lists: pgsql-general

David Fetter wrote:
> On Tue, Oct 06, 2009 at 09:57:39AM +0100, Tim Bunce wrote:

> > * Enable configuration of perl at initialization
> >
> > Add ability to specify in postgresql.conf some code to be run when a
> > perl interpreter is initialized. For example:
> >
> > plperl.at_init_do = 'use lib qw(/path/to/mylib); use MyPlPerlUtils; use List::Util qw(sum);'
>
> Would there be some way to integrate this with the per-ROLE,
> per-database GUC infrastructure?

I don't have that patch installed right now but I don't think it would
change the current behavior, which is that it should work just fine (and
if it doesn't, that's a bug).

One thing that's not clear to me is how would this work for
non-superusers. Wouldn't this violate the Safe containment? If it does
then it should be superuser-only, no?

> > For a PL/Perl function called “foo”, a minimal implementation would use
> > a name like “foo__id54321″ where 54321 is the oid of the function. This
> > avoids having to deal with polymorphic functions (where multiple
> > functions have the same name but different arguments).
> >
> > The names won’t enable inter-function calling
>
> Inter-function calling could be handy, too.

I agree. This would mean that the function name mangling would have to
be more predictable ... maybe using the argument types instead of OID?

--
Alvaro Herrera http://www.CommandPrompt.com/
PostgreSQL Replication, Consulting, Custom Development, 24x7 support

In response to

Responses

Browse pgsql-general by date

  From Date Subject
Next Message Stuart Bishop 2009-10-06 13:43:22 Re: attempted to lock invisible tuple - PG 8.4.1
Previous Message Alvaro Herrera 2009-10-06 13:28:19 Re: attempted to lock invisible tuple - PG 8.4.1