Andrew Dunstan wrote:
> Tom Lane wrote:
>
>> Andrew Dunstan <andrew@dunslane.net> writes:
>>
>>> Works for me. There are some other things about the procdesc stuff
>>> I'm trying to sort out (especially if we should be storing per-call
>>> info inside it).
>>>
>>
>>
>> Hmm, probably not ... check to see if a recursive plperl function
>> behaves sanely. (This might not have been much of an issue before
>> we had SPI support in plperl, since there was no way to recurse;
>> but it is an issue now.)
>
>
> Behaviour is not good (see below for proof).
>
> ISTM we'll need some sort of implicit of explicit stack of per-call
> data. The trick will be getting it to behave right under error recovery.
Looking further ... we already do this implicitly for prodesc in the
call handler - we would just need to do the same thing for per-call
structures and divorce them from prodesc, which can be repeated on the
implicit stack.
I'll work on that - changes should be quite small.
cheers
andrew
