On Tue, Feb 2, 2010 at 10:46 PM, Robert Haas <robertmhaas@gmail.com> wrote:
> On Tue, Feb 2, 2010 at 10:42 PM, Alex Hunsaker <badalex@gmail.com> wrote:
>> On Sat, Jan 30, 2010 at 08:49, Tim Bunce <Tim.Bunce@pobox.com> wrote:
>>> This is an update the fourth of the patches to be split out from the
>>> former 'plperl feature patch 1'.
>>>
>>> Changes in this patch:
>>>
>>> - Adds plperl.on_trusted_init and plperl.on_untrusted_init GUCs
>>> on_trusted_init is PGC_USERSET, on_untrusted_init is PGC_SUSET
>>
>> Im not a fan of the names (I think everyone gets trusted vs untrusted
>> confused). May I humbly suggest:
>> plperl.on_init
>> plperlu.on_init
>> plperl.both_on_init <- this one is the one that throws the scheme off :(
>>
>>> SPI functions are not available when the code is run.
>>
>> Hrm, we might want to stick why in the docs or as a comment somewhere.
>> I think this was the main concern?
>>
>> * We call a plperl function for the first time in a session, causing
>> plperl.so to be loaded. This happens in the context of a superuser
>> calling a non-superuser security definer function, or perhaps vice
>> versa. Whose permissions apply to whatever the on_load code tries
>> to do? (Hint: every answer is wrong.)
>>
>>> - select_perl_context() state management improved
>>> An error during interpreter initialization will leave
>>> the state (interp_state etc) unchanged.
>>
>> This looked good.
>>
>>> - The utf8fix code has been greatly simplified.
>>
>> Yeah to the point that it makes me wonder if the old code had some
>> reason to spin up the FunctionCall stuff. Do you happen to know?
>> Looks good to me otherwise.
>>
>> The tests dont seem to pass :( this is from a make installcheck-world
>> test plperl_shared ... FAILED
>> ...
>> test plperl_init ... FAILED
>>
>> with:
>> SET plperl.on_trusted_init = '$_SHARED{on_init} = 42';
>> + ERROR: unrecognized configuration parameter "plperl.on_trusted_init"
>> -- test the shared hash
>>
>> If I throw a LOAD 'plperl'; at the top of those sql files it works...
>>
>> The only quibble I have with the docs is:
>> + If the code fails with an error it will abort the initialization and
>> + propagate out to the calling query, causing the current transaction or
>> + subtransaction to be aborted. Any changes within the perl won't be
>> + undone. If the <literal>plperl</> language is used again the
>> + initialization will be repeated.
>>
>> Instead of "Any changes within the perl won't be undone". Maybe
>> "Changes to the perl interpreter will not be undone" ?
>
> With all due respect.... yuck.
OK, third time is the charm. Sigh. The "yuck" was in reference
specifically to the proposed GUC names.
I like the original ones better.
...Robert