Re: plperl crash with Debian 6 (64 bit), pl/perlu, libwww and https

From: Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us>
To: Andrew Dunstan <andrew(at)dunslane(dot)net>
Cc: Tim Bunce <Tim(dot)Bunce(at)pobox(dot)com>, Alex Hunsaker <badalex(at)gmail(dot)com>, Pgsql Hackers <pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org>, Hannu Krosing <hannu(at)2ndQuadrant(dot)com>
Subject: Re: plperl crash with Debian 6 (64 bit), pl/perlu, libwww and https
Date: 2011-08-10 17:27:18
Message-ID: 14017.1312997238@sss.pgh.pa.us
Views: Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email
Thread:
Lists: pgsql-hackers

Andrew Dunstan <andrew(at)dunslane(dot)net> writes:
> On 08/09/2011 04:32 PM, Tom Lane wrote:
>> [ shrug... ] Installing a perl module that mucks with the signal
>> handlers is in the "don't do that" category. A kluge such as you
>> suggest will not get it out of that category; all it will do is add
>> useless overhead for people who are following the rules.

> Well, knowing what a given module might do isn't always easy (see
> below). I don't much like saying to people "I told you so", especially
> when following the advice isn't necessarily straightforward.

I'm not thrilled with it either, but since we have no proposed patch
that would actually make it *safe* for perl modules to muck with the
signal handlers, I see no other alternative. A patch that simply makes
it a shade less unsafe isn't really an improvement, especially when it
has other disadvantages.

regards, tom lane

In response to

Browse pgsql-hackers by date

  From Date Subject
Next Message Tom Lane 2011-08-10 17:45:28 Re: Enforcing that all WAL has been replayed after restoring from backup
Previous Message David E. Wheeler 2011-08-10 17:03:58 Re: plperl crash with Debian 6 (64 bit), pl/perlu, libwww and https