From: | Robert Haas <robertmhaas(at)gmail(dot)com> |
---|---|
To: | Alvaro Herrera <alvherre(at)commandprompt(dot)com> |
Cc: | David Fetter <david(at)fetter(dot)org>, Tim Bunce <Tim(dot)Bunce(at)pobox(dot)com>, Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us>, pgsql-bugs(at)postgresql(dot)org |
Subject: | Re: BUG #5066: plperl issues with perl_destruct() and END blocks |
Date: | 2009-09-21 19:32:18 |
Message-ID: | 603c8f070909211232j67879e3dk1ade46d76f90927a@mail.gmail.com |
Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
Thread: | |
Lists: | pgsql-bugs |
On Mon, Sep 21, 2009 at 3:08 PM, Alvaro Herrera
<alvherre(at)commandprompt(dot)com> wrote:
> David Fetter escribió:
>> On Mon, Sep 21, 2009 at 01:06:17PM -0400, Alvaro Herrera wrote:
>
>> > 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.
>>
>> This is not quite what I meant. Let's say we have two or more different
>> PL/Perl functions executed over the course of a backend. Which one's
>> END block gets executed last?
>
> I think the manual is quite clear on this point. It talks about "files"
> which we don't have, but other than that it doesn't seem like there
> shouldn't be any problem.
>
> Now that I think about it, this only affects loaded modules, not the
> plperl functions themselves, right? I mean, you can't define an END
> block inside a function.
You might think that, but it turns out the world of Perl is crazier
than the ordinary mind can fathom.
$ perl -e 'sub foo { END { print "hi\n" } }'
hi
...Robert
From | Date | Subject | |
---|---|---|---|
Next Message | Matt Taylor | 2009-09-21 21:07:11 | Re: BUG #5063: MS Access crashes by quiting after linking tables with PostgreSQL |
Previous Message | Christine Penner | 2009-09-21 19:23:45 | Re: Problem installing Postgres 8.4.1 |