Re: plperl vs LC_COLLATE (was Re: Possible savepoint bug) - Mailing list pgsql-hackers

From Tom Lane
Subject Re: plperl vs LC_COLLATE (was Re: Possible savepoint bug)
Date
Msg-id 17797.1135788085@sss.pgh.pa.us
Whole thread Raw
In response to plperl vs LC_COLLATE (was Re: Possible savepoint bug)  (Tom Lane <tgl@sss.pgh.pa.us>)
Responses Re: plperl vs LC_COLLATE (was Re: Possible savepoint bug)  ("Andrew Dunstan" <andrew@dunslane.net>)
List pgsql-hackers
I wrote:
> So the mere act of defining a plperl function, even with
> check_function_bodies = false, is sufficient to send control through
> that bit of libperl code that does setlocale(LC_ALL, "").  Ugh.
> This is much worse than I thought.

It seems one ingredient in this is that the plperl function validator
fails to honor check_function_bodies, and hence is calling libperl
anyway.  I wonder if that explains the sudden rise in incidents in 8.1?
        regards, tom lane


pgsql-hackers by date:

Previous
From: Tom Lane
Date:
Subject: plperl vs LC_COLLATE (was Re: Possible savepoint bug)
Next
From: "Andrew Dunstan"
Date:
Subject: Re: plperl vs LC_COLLATE (was Re: Possible savepoint bug)