On Mon, Sep 21, 2009 at 7:30 PM, Tom Lane <t...@sss.pgh.pa.us> wrote: > David Fetter <da...@fetter.org> writes: >> On Mon, Sep 21, 2009 at 12:06:30PM -0400, Alvaro Herrera wrote: >>>> With connection poolers, backends can last quite awhile. Is it OK >>>> for the END block to run hours after the rest of the code? >>> >>> This is an interesting point -- should END blocks be called on >>> DISCARD ALL? > >> ENOCLUE > > And in the same vein, should they be called inside a transaction, > or not? What if they fail? > > I don't see any reason whatsoever that we couldn't just document this > as a Perl feature not supported in plperl. If you do something like > creating threads inside plperl, we're going to give you the raspberry > when you complain about it breaking. END blocks can perfectly well > go into the same category.
If the changes are simple, as Tim seems to believe, exactly what do we lose by doing this? ...Robert -- Sent via pgsql-bugs mailing list (pgsql-bugs@postgresql.org) To make changes to your subscription: http://www.postgresql.org/mailpref/pgsql-bugs
