Re: Add on_perl_init and proper destruction to plperl [PATCH]

From: Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us>
To: Andrew Dunstan <andrew(at)dunslane(dot)net>
Cc: Tim Bunce <Tim(dot)Bunce(at)pobox(dot)com>, Alex Hunsaker <badalex(at)gmail(dot)com>, pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org
Subject: Re: Add on_perl_init and proper destruction to plperl [PATCH]
Date: 2010-01-27 16:28:02
Message-ID: 7797.1264609682@sss.pgh.pa.us
Views: Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email
Thread:
Lists: pgsql-hackers

Andrew Dunstan <andrew(at)dunslane(dot)net> writes:
> Tom Lane wrote:
>> Indeed, AFAICS the major *point* of these additions is to allow people
>> to insert unknown other functionality that is likely to interact
>> with the rest of the backend; a prospect that doesn't make me feel
>> better about it.

> No. The major use case we've seen for END blocks is to allow a profiler
> to write its data out. That should have zero interaction with the rest
> of the backend.

Really? We've found that gprof, for instance, doesn't exactly have
"zero interaction with the rest of the backend" --- there's actually
a couple of different bits in there to help it along, including a
behavioral change during shutdown. I rather doubt that Perl profilers
would turn out much different.

But in any case, I don't believe for a moment that profiling is the only
or even the largest use to which people would try to put this.

regards, tom lane

In response to

Responses

Browse pgsql-hackers by date

  From Date Subject
Next Message Heikki Linnakangas 2010-01-27 16:38:00 Re: testing cvs HEAD - HS/SR - missing file
Previous Message Andrew Dunstan 2010-01-27 16:23:18 Re: Add on_perl_init and proper destruction to plperl [PATCH]