Re: why does plperl cache functions using just a bool for is_trigger
Alex Hunsaker <badalex@gmail.com>
From: Alex Hunsaker <badalex@gmail.com>
To: Tom Lane <tgl@sss.pgh.pa.us>
Cc: Andrew Dunstan <andrew@dunslane.net>, Jan Urbański <wulczer@wulczer.org>, Postgres - Hackers <pgsql-hackers@postgresql.org>
Date: 2010-11-01T21:24:03Z
Lists: pgsql-hackers
Commits
Same data as JSON:
GET /api/v1/messages/:b64id/commits
the thread's linked commits as JSON, with link sources.
API reference →
-
Remove unnecessary use of trigger flag to hash plperl functions
- 2d01ec0708d5 9.1.0 cited
Attachments
- pltcl_rm_tgrelod_key.patch (text/x-patch) patch
On Mon, Nov 1, 2010 at 09:28, Tom Lane <tgl@sss.pgh.pa.us> wrote: > I think the crash is dependent on the fact that the function is created > and called in the same session. That means the validator gets called on > it first, and the validator not unreasonably assumes istrigger = true, > and then it calls compile_plperl_function which sets up a cache entry > on that basis. So then when the "regular" call comes along, it tries > to reuse the cache entry in the other style. Kaboom. The other Kaboom happens if the trigger gets called as a trigger first and then directly. >>> There is a check so that trigger functions can not be called as plain >>> functions... I think just moving that up... > No, that is just moving a test that only needs to be done once into a > place where it has to be done every time. You might as well argue that > we shouldn't cache any of the setup but just redo it all every time. Huh? I might try and argue that if the new test was more complex than 2 compares :P. In-fact the way it stands now we uselessly grab the functions pg_proc entry in the common case. Would you object to trying to clean that up across all pls? Im thinking add an is_trigger or context to each proc_desc, then check that in the corresponding handlers. While im at it get rid of at least one SysCache lookup. Thoughts? We can still keep the is_trigger bool in the hash key, as you said below it is a good safety feature. I just wish the logic was spelled out a bit more. Maybe im alone here. > It's also the same way > that the other three PLs do things, and I see no good excuse for plperl > to do things differently here. Im all in favor of keeping things between the pls as close as possible. Speaking of which, pltcl stores the trigger reloid instead of a flag (it also uses tg_reloid in the internal proname). It seems a tad excessive to have one function *per* trigger table. I looked through the history to see if there was some reason, it goes all the way back to the initial commit. I assume its this way because it copied plpgsql, which needs it as the rowtype might be different per table. pltcl should not have that issue. Find attached a patch to clean that up and make it match the other pls (err um plperl). It passes its regression tests and some additional limited testing. Thoughts?