From: | Alex Hunsaker <badalex(at)gmail(dot)com> |
---|---|
To: | Alvaro Herrera <alvherre(at)commandprompt(dot)com> |
Cc: | Greg Sabino Mullane <greg(at)endpoint(dot)com>, pgsql-bugs <pgsql-bugs(at)postgresql(dot)org> |
Subject: | Re: Plperl trigger variables no longer global |
Date: | 2011-05-05 16:14:55 |
Message-ID: | BANLkTinU_PXwUid1iM7zR081rwb13gqW6w@mail.gmail.com |
Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
Thread: | |
Lists: | pgsql-bugs |
On Thu, May 5, 2011 at 06:51, Alvaro Herrera <alvherre(at)commandprompt(dot)com> wrote:
> Excerpts from Alex Hunsaker's message of mié may 04 23:53:34 -0300 2011:
>
>> After playing with it a bit more I see 2 clear options:
>> 1) make $_TD global like %_SHARED. This should not cause any problems
>> as we make $_TD private via local() before each trigger call. Also pre
>> 9.1 non trigger functions could still access and check the definedness
>> of $_TD so if someone was relying on that (for whatever unknown
>> reason) that will work again.
>
> This is strange. Are you saying that there's no decent way to make a
> variable global in C code?
Im sure we could... I don't see any reason to do it in C. (performance
or otherwise)
In other news I found another bug with this-- it was trying to
local($_TD) by using SAVESPTR() when it seems it really should be
using save_item(). Currently its not really localizing $_TD, which at
the very least means recursive triggers might modify the callers $_TD.
Ugh.
Fixed in the attached plus added regression tests for both issues (use
strict; && Global symbol "$_TD" requires explicit package name, test
recursive trigger calls). Although Ill admit, given the point we are
in the release I could see a revert also being justified.
Greg, big thanks for testing! keep it up! :)
Attachment | Content-Type | Size |
---|---|---|
plperl_fix_td_v2.patch | text/x-patch | 3.4 KB |
From | Date | Subject | |
---|---|---|---|
Next Message | Nestor | 2011-05-05 18:57:44 | BUG #6009: Duvida |
Previous Message | Tom Lane | 2011-05-05 15:54:10 | Re: BUG #6008: Can't contact Tom Lane :) |