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

From: "David E(dot) Wheeler" <david(at)kineticode(dot)com>
To: Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us>
Cc: Tim Bunce <Tim(dot)Bunce(at)pobox(dot)com>, Alex Hunsaker <badalex(at)gmail(dot)com>, Andrew Dunstan <andrew(at)dunslane(dot)net>, pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org
Subject: Re: Add on_perl_init and proper destruction to plperl [PATCH]
Date: 2010-01-27 17:53:44
Message-ID: CBAA4731-0E52-4651-8366-172C3ADD7751@kineticode.com
Views: Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email
Thread:
Lists: pgsql-hackers

On Jan 27, 2010, at 9:08 AM, Tom Lane wrote:

> This is exactly the claim that I have zero confidence in. Quite
> frankly, the problem with Perl as an extension language is that Perl was
> never designed to be a subsystem: it feels free to mess around with the
> entire state of the process. We've been burnt multiple times by that
> even with the limited use we make of Perl now, and these proposed
> additions are going to make it a lot worse IMO.

Can you provide an example? Such concerns are impossible to address without concrete examples.

Best,

David

In response to

Responses

Browse pgsql-hackers by date

  From Date Subject
Next Message Tom Lane 2010-01-27 18:08:56 Re: Add on_perl_init and proper destruction to plperl [PATCH]
Previous Message Ivan Sergio Borgonovo 2010-01-27 17:49:47 Re: C function accepting/returning cstring vs. text