| From: | Tim Bunce <Tim(dot)Bunce(at)pobox(dot)com> |
|---|---|
| To: | Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us> |
| Cc: | Robert Haas <robertmhaas(at)gmail(dot)com>, "David E(dot) Wheeler" <david(at)kineticode(dot)com>, Tim Bunce <Tim(dot)Bunce(at)pobox(dot)com>, pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org |
| Subject: | Re: First feature patch for plperl - draft [PATCH] |
| Date: | 2009-12-04 19:40:18 |
| Message-ID: | 20091204194018.GC89699@timac.local |
| Views: | Whole Thread | Raw Message | Download mbox | Resend email |
| Thread: | |
| Lists: | pgsql-hackers |
On Fri, Dec 04, 2009 at 02:05:28PM -0500, Tom Lane wrote:
> Robert Haas <robertmhaas(at)gmail(dot)com> writes:
> > So, do we look for another way to provide the functionality besides
> > having a GUC, or is the functionality itself bad?
>
> I don't think we want random Perl code running inside the postmaster,
> no matter what the API to cause it is. I might hold my nose for "on
> load" code if it can only run in backends, though I still say that
> it's a badly designed concept because of the uncertainty about who
> will run what when.
Robert's comparison with mod_perl is very apt. Preloading code gives
dramatic performance gains in production situations where there's a
significant codebase and connections are frequent.
The docs for plperl.on_perl_init could include a section relating to
it's use with shared_preload_libraries. That could document any issues
and caveats you feel are important.
Tim.
| From | Date | Subject | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Next Message | Bruce Momjian | 2009-12-04 20:00:49 | Re: Block-level CRC checks |
| Previous Message | Dave Page | 2009-12-04 19:36:11 | Re: PostgreSQL Release Support Policy |