Re: New PL/Perl failure with Safe 2.2x due to recursion (8.x & 9.0) - Mailing list pgsql-bugs

From Tom Lane
Subject Re: New PL/Perl failure with Safe 2.2x due to recursion (8.x & 9.0)
Date
Msg-id 20100.1267070297@sss.pgh.pa.us
Whole thread Raw
In response to Re: New PL/Perl failure with Safe 2.2x due to recursion (8.x & 9.0)  (Alex Hunsaker <badalex@gmail.com>)
Responses Re: New PL/Perl failure with Safe 2.2x due to recursion (8.x & 9.0)  (Tim Bunce <Tim.Bunce@pobox.com>)
List pgsql-bugs
Alex Hunsaker <badalex@gmail.com> writes:
> On Wed, Feb 24, 2010 at 20:37, Alex Hunsaker <badalex@gmail.com> wrote:
>> On Wed, Feb 24, 2010 at 20:19, Tom Lane <tgl@sss.pgh.pa.us> wrote:
>>> Seems entirely unacceptable.

>> I think we will see if we can get this fixed on the Safe/perl side then.

> BTW the trade off here is we revert back to sort { $a <=> $b } not
> working.  That is if you could call it a trade off... The level of
> breaking is not really comparable :)

That's two unacceptable alternatives, you need to find a third one.
I think most people will have no trouble settling on "do not update
to Safe 2.2x" if you don't offer a better solution than these.

            regards, tom lane

pgsql-bugs by date:

Previous
From: Alex Hunsaker
Date:
Subject: Re: New PL/Perl failure with Safe 2.2x due to recursion (8.x & 9.0)
Next
From: Tom Lane
Date:
Subject: Re: PostgreSQL-9.0alpha: jade required?