Re: Feature patch 1 for plperl [PATCH]

Tim Bunce <Tim(dot)Bunce(at)pobox(dot)com> writes:
> On Fri, Jan 08, 2010 at 10:36:43PM -0500, Robert Haas wrote:
>> I kind of thought Tom said these were a bad idea, and I think I kind
>> of agree.

> Tom had some concerns which I believe I've addressed.

You haven't addressed them, you've simply ignored them. For the record,
I think it's a bad idea to run arbitrary user-defined code in the
postmaster, and I think it's a worse idea to run arbitrary user-defined
code at backend shutdown (the END-blocks bit). I do not care in the
least what applications you think this might enable --- the negative
consequences for overall system stability seem to me to outweigh any
possible arguments on that side. What happens when the supplied code
has errors, takes an unreasonable amount of time to run, does something
unsafe, depends on the backend not being in an error state already, etc
etc?

I do not have a veto over stuff like this, but if I did, it would
not go in.

>> We're not going to support multi-line values for GUCs
>> AFAIK, so this is going to be pretty kludgy.

> I'm not sure what you mean by "this".

What he means by "this" is defining GUCs in a way that would make people
want to use multi-line values for them. However, that doesn't have
anything to do with my worries ...

regards, tom lane