Re: plruby: rb_iterate symbol clash with libruby.so
Pavel Raiskup <praiskup@redhat.com>
From: Pavel Raiskup <praiskup@redhat.com>
To: Tom Lane <tgl@sss.pgh.pa.us>
Cc: Robert Haas <robertmhaas@gmail.com>, "pgsql-hackers@postgresql.org" <pgsql-hackers@postgresql.org>, Devrim GÜNDÜZ <devrim@gunduz.org>
Date: 2018-11-07T16:06:01Z
Lists: pgsql-hackers
On Wednesday, November 7, 2018 4:55:13 PM CET Tom Lane wrote: > Pavel Raiskup <praiskup@redhat.com> writes: > > On Wednesday, November 7, 2018 3:25:31 PM CET Tom Lane wrote: > >> Yeah, I'm now mighty confused about this as well. PL/Ruby is pretty old > >> too, so how come nobody noticed this before? Is its rb_iterate call in > >> someplace that hardly gets any use? > > > ... I reproduced this by trigger function from tests/plt test-case > > on the first try, more info and related fixes in [1]. But it is truth > > that we haven't run the test-suite for RPM builds so far. > > Might the reason be that nobody used plruby at all for a very long time? > > I'm starting to think that. I just browsed through the code of plruby, > and while I don't know that language at all, there are rb_iterate calls > in places that look like they'd be hard to avoid in typical use. > > The fact that the upstream git repo hasn't been touched in nine years > doesn't exactly indicate a lively project, either :-( > > If you guys want to pursue this, I'll finish up the back-patch, but I > wonder if we're just wasting our time. FWIW, I plan to help with fixing the plruby project, but to be honest - I still think that the code can be fixed to not use rb_iterate() anyways. So back-patch is not needed by me - and certainly not now. Pavel
Commits
-
Rename rbtree.c functions to use "rbt" prefix not "rb" prefix.
- b2e754c14e27 10.7 landed
- 1f28ec6be270 11.1 landed
- 003c68a3b45d 12.0 landed