From: | Joshua Tolley <eggyknap(at)gmail(dot)com> |
---|---|
To: | Andrew Dunstan <andrew(at)dunslane(dot)net> |
Cc: | pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org |
Subject: | Re: plperl and inline functions -- first draft |
Date: | 2009-11-07 02:37:35 |
Message-ID: | 20091107023735.GB4974@eddie |
Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
Thread: | |
Lists: | pgsql-hackers |
On Fri, Nov 06, 2009 at 06:37:38PM -0500, Andrew Dunstan wrote:
>
> I wrote:
>>
>> Ok, I have a handle on the trusted/nontrusted issue. But I think the
>> piece that's missing here is that it needs to save the calling context
>> etc. and use PG_TRY() and friends, just like plperl_call_handler().
>> I'll work on that.
>>
>>
>
> OK, I committed the previously discussed change to store the language
> trusted flag in the InlineCodeBlock structure. Following that, here is
> my reworking of Josh's patch for DO blocks for plperl.
>
> Missing are docs and regression tests.
Attached is a cleaned up comment with documentation. I looked through the
regression tests and didn't find any that used plperl -- should we add one for
this (or for this and all kinds of other stuff)? Is there some way to make
running the regression test conditional on having built --with-perl in the
first place?
--
Joshua Tolley / eggyknap
End Point Corporation
http://www.endpoint.com
Attachment | Content-Type | Size |
---|---|---|
plperl-inline.patch | text/x-diff | 5.8 KB |
From | Date | Subject | |
---|---|---|---|
Next Message | Andrew Dunstan | 2009-11-07 02:44:15 | Re: operator exclusion constraints |
Previous Message | Tom Lane | 2009-11-07 02:23:32 | Re: operator exclusion constraints |