From: | Alex Hunsaker <badalex(at)gmail(dot)com> |
---|---|
To: | Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us> |
Cc: | Robert Haas <robertmhaas(at)gmail(dot)com>, Tim Bunce <Tim(dot)Bunce(at)pobox(dot)com>, pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org |
Subject: | Re: Add on_trusted_init and on_untrusted_init to plperl UPDATED [PATCH] |
Date: | 2010-02-03 05:13:06 |
Message-ID: | 34d269d41002022113t13abb1aeic9afefeb0fd164a9@mail.gmail.com |
Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
Thread: | |
Lists: | pgsql-hackers |
On Tue, Feb 2, 2010 at 21:38, Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us> wrote:
> Alex Hunsaker <badalex(at)gmail(dot)com> writes:
>> Yeah the both is gross. How about:
>> plperl.on_plperl_init
>> plperl.on_plperlu_init
>> plperl.on_init ?
>
> I like the first two. The problem of selecting a good name for the
> third one is easily solved: don't have it. What would it be except
> a headache and a likely security problem?
Well its already in. (FYI its also PGC_SIGHUP) I included it here
because I wanted to make sure it made sense in context of the other
new plperl GUCs.
I *think* its there so people can:
-"use" the same modules in both
-profile both plperl and plperlu code easily (which is really the same point...)
The main difference between on_init and the other two is the later get
eval()ed in while the former is treated as "perl -e". (Did I get that
right Tim? I did not really look over the first patch). Im not sure
if there are different consequences for that style... But I would
venture its done that way so we can profile any perl interpreter
startup stuff we do in plperl.c or the src/pl/plperl/*.pl files.
So there might be a reason for it...
From | Date | Subject | |
---|---|---|---|
Next Message | Tom Lane | 2010-02-03 05:50:35 | Re: Add on_trusted_init and on_untrusted_init to plperl UPDATED [PATCH] |
Previous Message | Tom Lane | 2010-02-03 04:38:33 | Re: Add on_trusted_init and on_untrusted_init to plperl UPDATED [PATCH] |