From: | Robert Haas <robertmhaas(at)gmail(dot)com> |
---|---|
To: | Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us> |
Cc: | "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 18:56:14 |
Message-ID: | 603c8f070912041056k36518268lf6fb3ac56e4b1327@mail.gmail.com |
Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
Thread: | |
Lists: | pgsql-hackers |
On Fri, Dec 4, 2009 at 1:51 PM, Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us> wrote:
> "David E. Wheeler" <david(at)kineticode(dot)com> writes:
>> On Dec 4, 2009, at 10:36 AM, Tom Lane wrote:
>>> I vote a big no on this.
>
>> That's fine. It's relatively simple for an admin to create a Perl module that does everything she wants, call it PGInit or something, and then just make the GUC:
>
>> plperl.on_perl_init = 'use PGInit;'
>
> No, you missed the point: I'm objecting to having any such thing as
> plperl.on_perl_init, full stop.
>
> Aside from the points I already made, it's not even well defined.
> What is to happen if the admin changes the value when the system
> is already up?
So, do we look for another way to provide the functionality besides
having a GUC, or is the functionality itself bad?
...Robert
From | Date | Subject | |
---|---|---|---|
Next Message | Bruce Momjian | 2009-12-04 19:04:27 | Re: Block-level CRC checks |
Previous Message | Jeff | 2009-12-04 18:51:53 | Re: First feature patch for plperl - draft [PATCH] |