On 2013-01-25 14:51:39 -0500, Tom Lane wrote: > Andres Freund <and...@2ndquadrant.com> writes: > > Its slightly more complex than just making it one hash table with an > > extended key. When validating a trigger function we don't have a > > relation to do the cache lookup. I chose to handle that case by not > > doing a cache lookup at all in that case which imo is a sensible > > choice. > > Seems fair. However ... why is it safe for PLy_procedure_create to be > using the same name for multiple instances of a trigger function? > Should we not be including the rel OID when building the procName > string?
I don't think its a problem, given the way python works I am pretty sure it will result in independent functions. Each PLy_procedure_compile will run the source code in a copy of PLy_interp_globals, therefore the independent comilitions shouldn't affect each other. I am not sure why it builds the call to the function via eval'ing a "$funcname()" instead of using the result of PyRun_String which will return a reference to the function, but thats an independent issue. Now I think an argument can be made that it would be nicer for debugging purposes to have clearly distinguishable function names, but I personally never needed it and it probably wouldn't be something to backpatch. People might rely on those function names. Greetings, Andres Freund -- Andres Freund http://www.2ndQuadrant.com/ PostgreSQL Development, 24x7 Support, Training & Services -- Sent via pgsql-bugs mailing list (pgsql-bugs@postgresql.org) To make changes to your subscription: http://www.postgresql.org/mailpref/pgsql-bugs
