From: | Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us> |
---|---|
To: | Alex Hunsaker <badalex(at)gmail(dot)com> |
Cc: | Andrew Dunstan <andrew(at)dunslane(dot)net>, Jan Urbański <wulczer(at)wulczer(dot)org>, Postgres - Hackers <pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org> |
Subject: | Re: why does plperl cache functions using just a bool for is_trigger |
Date: | 2010-11-03 16:28:42 |
Message-ID: | 8029.1288801722@sss.pgh.pa.us |
Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
Thread: | |
Lists: | pgsql-hackers |
Alex Hunsaker <badalex(at)gmail(dot)com> writes:
> On Mon, Nov 1, 2010 at 16:59, Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us> wrote:
>> Surely, removing the internal name's dependency on the istrigger flag is
>> wrong. If you're going to maintain separate hash entries at the pltcl
>> level, why would you want to risk collisions underneath that?
> Good catch. I was basing it off plperl which uses the same proname
> for both (sprintf(subname, %s__%u", prodesc->proname, fn_oid)). Its
> OK for plperl because when we compile we save a reference to it and
> use that directly (more or less). The name does not really matter.
OK, applied.
I notice that plpython is also using the trigger relation's OID, but I
don't know that language well enough to tell whether it really needs to.
regards, tom lane
From | Date | Subject | |
---|---|---|---|
Next Message | Alvaro Herrera | 2010-11-03 17:15:39 | Fwd: Re: ALTER OBJECT any_name SET SCHEMA name |
Previous Message | Dimitri Fontaine | 2010-11-03 16:10:12 | Re: ALTER OBJECT any_name SET SCHEMA name |