I'm not insisting anything. I merely suggest something that all pl<lang>
implementations would have a potential benefit from.
But perhaps I should insist. Both with respect to plperl, pltcl, or any
other pl<lang> where session data is possible. IMHO, session data spanning
more than one transcation is dangerous and error prone if it's not
coordinated with the transactions. Even if one can argue that, it's the
developers responsability to avoid the pitfalls, I still think its a bit
harsh to just disregard the benefits such mechanisms could gain by
transaction callback.
Regards,
- thomas
"Tom Lane" <tgl@sss.pgh.pa.us> wrote in message
news:4322.1076266805@sss.pgh.pa.us...
> "Thomas Hallgren" <thhal@mailblocks.com> writes:
> > "Andrew Dunstan" <andrew@dunslane.net> wrote:
> >> The attached tiny patch (not intended for application yet) provides a
> >> space for plperl functions to create and share session persistent data,
>
> > What about transactions?
>
> AFAICS, Andrew is just emulating a feature that has always existed in
> pltcl. Insisting that the plperl version must have intelligence not
> found in the pltcl version seems like raising the bar unfairly.
>
> regards, tom lane
>
> ---------------------------(end of broadcast)---------------------------
> TIP 5: Have you checked our extensive FAQ?
>
> http://www.postgresql.org/docs/faqs/FAQ.html
>