Re: Wishlist of PL/Perl Enhancements for PostgreSQL 8.5 - Mailing list pgsql-general

From Alvaro Herrera
Subject Re: Wishlist of PL/Perl Enhancements for PostgreSQL 8.5
Date
Msg-id 20091006133452.GB5929@alvh.no-ip.org
Whole thread Raw
In response to Re: Wishlist of PL/Perl Enhancements for PostgreSQL 8.5  (David Fetter <david@fetter.org>)
Responses Re: Wishlist of PL/Perl Enhancements for PostgreSQL 8.5
List pgsql-general
David Fetter wrote:
> On Tue, Oct 06, 2009 at 09:57:39AM +0100, Tim Bunce wrote:

> > * Enable configuration of perl at initialization
> >
> > Add ability to specify in postgresql.conf some code to be run when a
> > perl interpreter is initialized. For example:
> >
> > plperl.at_init_do = 'use lib qw(/path/to/mylib); use MyPlPerlUtils; use List::Util qw(sum);'
>
> Would there be some way to integrate this with the per-ROLE,
> per-database GUC infrastructure?

I don't have that patch installed right now but I don't think it would
change the current behavior, which is that it should work just fine (and
if it doesn't, that's a bug).

One thing that's not clear to me is how would this work for
non-superusers.  Wouldn't this violate the Safe containment?  If it does
then it should be superuser-only, no?

> > For a PL/Perl function called “foo”, a minimal implementation would use
> > a name like “foo__id54321″ where 54321 is the oid of the function. This
> > avoids having to deal with polymorphic functions (where multiple
> > functions have the same name but different arguments).
> >
> > The names won’t enable inter-function calling
>
> Inter-function calling could be handy, too.

I agree.  This would mean that the function name mangling would have to
be more predictable ... maybe using the argument types instead of OID?

--
Alvaro Herrera                                http://www.CommandPrompt.com/
PostgreSQL Replication, Consulting, Custom Development, 24x7 support

pgsql-general by date:

Previous
From: Alvaro Herrera
Date:
Subject: Re: attempted to lock invisible tuple - PG 8.4.1
Next
From: Stuart Bishop
Date:
Subject: Re: attempted to lock invisible tuple - PG 8.4.1