On 05/22/2018 06:02 PM, Tom Lane wrote:
Andrew Dunstan <andrew.duns...@2ndquadrant.com> writes:
On 05/22/2018 07:18 AM, Christoph Berg wrote:
plperl fails to install with perl 5.27.11, which is to be released as 5.28.0:
I have a tiny bit more info:
andrew=# load 'plperl.so';
ERROR:
CONTEXT: while running Perl initialization
andrew=#
I get the same behavior with a build of 5.27.11 on Fedora 28.
That means it's failing at line 860 of plperl.c.
Tracing through it, the problem is that perl_run is returning 0x100,
rather than zero as we expect, even though there was no failure.
This happens because perl.c:S_run_body() falls off the end of the
initialization code and does "my_exit(0);". Apparently it's done that for
a long time, but what's new is that perl_run() does this in response
after catching the longjmp from my_exit():
if (exit_called) {
ret = STATUS_EXIT;
if (ret == 0) ret = 0x100;
} else {
ret = 0;
}
That traces to this recent commit:
https://perl5.git.perl.org/perl.git/commitdiff/0301e899536a22752f40481d8a1d141b7a7dda82
which seems rather brain-dead from here, because it claims that it's
defining perl_run's result as a truth value, which it is not any more.
So assuming that this holds and the Perl guys don't see the error
of their ways, we'd need something like this, I think:
- if (perl_run(plperl) != 0)
+ if ((perl_run(plperl) & 0xFF) != 0)
but TBH I think someone oughta file a bug report first. They can't
seriously intend that callers must do that, especially when there does
not seem to be any big bold warning about it in perl*delta.pod.
(Also, since perl_parse and perl_run are now specified to have identical
return conventions, we'd probably want to change the perl_parse call
likewise, even though it's not failing today.)
(Alternatively, perhaps it's a bad idea that the plperl initialization
script falls off the end rather than explicitly returning?)
Well diagnosed. Maybe it's worth pointing out that almost all the
examples of perl_run() in the perlembed manual simply ignore the
returned value. OTOH, if that's what we're supposed to do why isn't the
function declared that way?
cheers
andrew
--
Andrew Dunstan https://www.2ndQuadrant.com
PostgreSQL Development, 24x7 Support, Remote DBA, Training & Services
