Unix Technical Forum

SEO

vBulletin Search Engine Optimization


Go Back   Unix Technical Forum > Database Server Software > PostgreSQL > Pgsql Patches

Register FAQ Members List Calendar Search Today's Posts Mark Forums Read
  #1 (permalink)  
Old 04-17-2008, 11:58 PM
Andrew Dunstan
 
Posts: n/a
Default suggested warning about perl nested named subroutines


I propose to add the following to the plperl docs, following recent
problems.

comments?

cheers

andrew


Index: plperl.sgml
================================================== =================
RCS file: /cvsroot/pgsql/doc/src/sgml/plperl.sgml,v
retrieving revision 2.45
diff -c -r2.45 plperl.sgml
*** plperl.sgml 24 Aug 2005 19:16:49 -0000 2.45
--- plperl.sgml 12 Oct 2005 00:36:33 -0000
***************
*** 53,64 ****
# PL/Perl function body
$$ LANGUAGE plperl;
</programlisting>
! The body of the function is ordinary Perl code. A PL/Perl function must
always return a scalar value. You can return more complex structures
(arrays, records, and sets) by returning a reference, as discussed
below.
Never return a list.
</para>

<para>
The syntax of the <command>CREATE FUNCTION</command> command requires
the function body to be written as a string constant. It is usually
--- 53,76 ----
# PL/Perl function body
$$ LANGUAGE plperl;
</programlisting>
! The body of the function is ordinary Perl code. In fact, the PL/Perl
! glue code wraps it inside a Perl subroutine. A PL/Perl function must
always return a scalar value. You can return more complex structures
(arrays, records, and sets) by returning a reference, as discussed
below.
Never return a list.
</para>

+ <note>
+ <para>
+ The use of named nested subroutines is dangerous in Perl,
especially if
+ they refer to lexical variables in the enclosing scope. Because
a PL/Perl
+ function is wrapped in a subroutine, any named subroutine you
create will
+ be nested. In general, it is far safer to create anonymous
subroutines
+ which you call via a coderef. See the <literal>perldiag</literal>
+ man page for more details.
+ </para>
+ </note>
+
<para>
The syntax of the <command>CREATE FUNCTION</command> command requires
the function body to be written as a string constant. It is usually


---------------------------(end of broadcast)---------------------------
TIP 3: Have you checked our extensive FAQ?

http://www.postgresql.org/docs/faq

Digg this Post!Add Post to del.icio.usBookmark Post in TechnoratiFurl this Post!
Reply With Quote
  #2 (permalink)  
Old 04-17-2008, 11:58 PM
David Fetter
 
Posts: n/a
Default Re: suggested warning about perl nested named subroutines

On Tue, Oct 11, 2005 at 08:40:21PM -0400, Andrew Dunstan wrote:
>
> I propose to add the following to the plperl docs, following recent
> problems.
>
> comments?


Examples of each and how they'd break would be good.

Cheers,
D
>
> cheers
>
> andrew
>
>
> Index: plperl.sgml
> ================================================== =================
> RCS file: /cvsroot/pgsql/doc/src/sgml/plperl.sgml,v
> retrieving revision 2.45
> diff -c -r2.45 plperl.sgml
> *** plperl.sgml 24 Aug 2005 19:16:49 -0000 2.45
> --- plperl.sgml 12 Oct 2005 00:36:33 -0000
> ***************
> *** 53,64 ****
> # PL/Perl function body
> $$ LANGUAGE plperl;
> </programlisting>
> ! The body of the function is ordinary Perl code. A PL/Perl function must
> always return a scalar value. You can return more complex structures
> (arrays, records, and sets) by returning a reference, as discussed
> below.
> Never return a list.
> </para>
>
> <para>
> The syntax of the <command>CREATE FUNCTION</command> command requires
> the function body to be written as a string constant. It is usually
> --- 53,76 ----
> # PL/Perl function body
> $$ LANGUAGE plperl;
> </programlisting>
> ! The body of the function is ordinary Perl code. In fact, the PL/Perl
> ! glue code wraps it inside a Perl subroutine. A PL/Perl function must
> always return a scalar value. You can return more complex structures
> (arrays, records, and sets) by returning a reference, as discussed
> below.
> Never return a list.
> </para>
>
> + <note>
> + <para>
> + The use of named nested subroutines is dangerous in Perl,
> especially if
> + they refer to lexical variables in the enclosing scope. Because
> a PL/Perl
> + function is wrapped in a subroutine, any named subroutine you
> create will
> + be nested. In general, it is far safer to create anonymous
> subroutines
> + which you call via a coderef. See the <literal>perldiag</literal>
> + man page for more details.
> + </para>
> + </note>
> +
> <para>
> The syntax of the <command>CREATE FUNCTION</command> command requires
> the function body to be written as a string constant. It is usually
>
>
> ---------------------------(end of broadcast)---------------------------
> TIP 3: Have you checked our extensive FAQ?
>
> http://www.postgresql.org/docs/faq


--
David Fetter david@fetter.org http://fetter.org/
phone: +1 510 893 6100 mobile: +1 415 235 3778

Remember to vote!

---------------------------(end of broadcast)---------------------------
TIP 9: In versions below 8.0, the planner will ignore your desire to
choose an index scan if your joining column's datatypes do not
match

Digg this Post!Add Post to del.icio.usBookmark Post in TechnoratiFurl this Post!
Reply With Quote
  #3 (permalink)  
Old 04-17-2008, 11:58 PM
Neil Conway
 
Posts: n/a
Default Re: suggested warning about perl nested named subroutines

On Tue, 2005-11-10 at 18:36 -0700, David Fetter wrote:
> Examples of each and how they'd break would be good.


Is that needed? Seems like overkill to me.

-Neil



---------------------------(end of broadcast)---------------------------
TIP 5: don't forget to increase your free space map settings

Digg this Post!Add Post to del.icio.usBookmark Post in TechnoratiFurl this Post!
Reply With Quote
  #4 (permalink)  
Old 04-17-2008, 11:58 PM
David Fetter
 
Posts: n/a
Default Re: suggested warning about perl nested named subroutines

On Tue, Oct 11, 2005 at 09:58:22PM -0400, Neil Conway wrote:
> On Tue, 2005-11-10 at 18:36 -0700, David Fetter wrote:
> > Examples of each and how they'd break would be good.

>
> Is that needed? Seems like overkill to me.


IMHO, yes, and no, respectively. If there's an example, there's fewer
frustrated people pestering lists about it.

Cheers,
D
--
David Fetter david@fetter.org http://fetter.org/
phone: +1 510 893 6100 mobile: +1 415 235 3778

Remember to vote!

---------------------------(end of broadcast)---------------------------
TIP 9: In versions below 8.0, the planner will ignore your desire to
choose an index scan if your joining column's datatypes do not
match

Digg this Post!Add Post to del.icio.usBookmark Post in TechnoratiFurl this Post!
Reply With Quote
  #5 (permalink)  
Old 04-17-2008, 11:58 PM
Andrew Dunstan
 
Posts: n/a
Default Re: suggested warning about perl nested named subroutines



David Fetter wrote:

>On Tue, Oct 11, 2005 at 09:58:22PM -0400, Neil Conway wrote:
>
>
>>On Tue, 2005-11-10 at 18:36 -0700, David Fetter wrote:
>>
>>
>>>Examples of each and how they'd break would be good.
>>>
>>>

>>Is that needed? Seems like overkill to me.
>>
>>

>
>IMHO, yes, and no, respectively. If there's an example, there's fewer
>frustrated people pestering lists about it.
>
>
>
>


If this were a Postgres problem I'd agree with you. But it isn't, really
- it's a Perl problem, which is properly documented in the Perl docs, to
which this note refers.

I don't think we'll get flooded with problems - Greg is the first person
who has complained about it in the 9 months or so since version 8.0 was
released.

cheers

andrew

---------------------------(end of broadcast)---------------------------
TIP 5: don't forget to increase your free space map settings

Digg this Post!Add Post to del.icio.usBookmark Post in TechnoratiFurl this Post!
Reply With Quote
  #6 (permalink)  
Old 04-17-2008, 11:58 PM
Neil Conway
 
Posts: n/a
Default Re: suggested warning about perl nested named subroutines

On Tue, 2005-11-10 at 18:55 -0700, David Fetter wrote:
> IMHO, yes, and no, respectively. If there's an example, there's fewer
> frustrated people pestering lists about it.


There is something to be said for brevity: spending a lot of prose on an
example of an obscure problem means the documentation is more difficult
to understand and less useful to most users.

Of course, that's not to say this particular problem is sufficiently
obscure that an example isn't worthwhile (I don't really know) -- but
the attitude that examples are always good is misguided IMHO.

-Neil



---------------------------(end of broadcast)---------------------------
TIP 5: don't forget to increase your free space map settings

Digg this Post!Add Post to del.icio.usBookmark Post in TechnoratiFurl this Post!
Reply With Quote
  #7 (permalink)  
Old 04-17-2008, 11:58 PM
David Fetter
 
Posts: n/a
Default Re: suggested warning about perl nested named subroutines

On Tue, Oct 11, 2005 at 10:01:02PM -0400, Andrew Dunstan wrote:
>
>
> David Fetter wrote:
>
> >On Tue, Oct 11, 2005 at 09:58:22PM -0400, Neil Conway wrote:
> >
> >>On Tue, 2005-11-10 at 18:36 -0700, David Fetter wrote:
> >>
> >>>Examples of each and how they'd break would be good.
> >>>
> >>Is that needed? Seems like overkill to me.

> >
> >IMHO, yes, and no, respectively. If there's an example, there's
> >fewer frustrated people pestering lists about it.

>
> If this were a Postgres problem I'd agree with you. But it isn't,
> really - it's a Perl problem, which is properly documented in the
> Perl docs, to which this note refers.
>
> I don't think we'll get flooded with problems - Greg is the first
> person who has complained about it in the 9 months or so since
> version 8.0 was released.


Fair enough

Cheers,
D
--
David Fetter david@fetter.org http://fetter.org/
phone: +1 510 893 6100 mobile: +1 415 235 3778

Remember to vote!

---------------------------(end of broadcast)---------------------------
TIP 6: explain analyze is your friend

Digg this Post!Add Post to del.icio.usBookmark Post in TechnoratiFurl this Post!
Reply With Quote
  #8 (permalink)  
Old 04-17-2008, 11:58 PM
Bruce Momjian
 
Posts: n/a
Default Re: suggested warning about perl nested named subroutines


Patch applied. Thanks.

---------------------------------------------------------------------------


Andrew Dunstan wrote:
>
> I propose to add the following to the plperl docs, following recent
> problems.
>
> comments?
>
> cheers
>
> andrew
>
>
> Index: plperl.sgml
> ================================================== =================
> RCS file: /cvsroot/pgsql/doc/src/sgml/plperl.sgml,v
> retrieving revision 2.45
> diff -c -r2.45 plperl.sgml
> *** plperl.sgml 24 Aug 2005 19:16:49 -0000 2.45
> --- plperl.sgml 12 Oct 2005 00:36:33 -0000
> ***************
> *** 53,64 ****
> # PL/Perl function body
> $$ LANGUAGE plperl;
> </programlisting>
> ! The body of the function is ordinary Perl code. A PL/Perl function must
> always return a scalar value. You can return more complex structures
> (arrays, records, and sets) by returning a reference, as discussed
> below.
> Never return a list.
> </para>
>
> <para>
> The syntax of the <command>CREATE FUNCTION</command> command requires
> the function body to be written as a string constant. It is usually
> --- 53,76 ----
> # PL/Perl function body
> $$ LANGUAGE plperl;
> </programlisting>
> ! The body of the function is ordinary Perl code. In fact, the PL/Perl
> ! glue code wraps it inside a Perl subroutine. A PL/Perl function must
> always return a scalar value. You can return more complex structures
> (arrays, records, and sets) by returning a reference, as discussed
> below.
> Never return a list.
> </para>
>
> + <note>
> + <para>
> + The use of named nested subroutines is dangerous in Perl,
> especially if
> + they refer to lexical variables in the enclosing scope. Because
> a PL/Perl
> + function is wrapped in a subroutine, any named subroutine you
> create will
> + be nested. In general, it is far safer to create anonymous
> subroutines
> + which you call via a coderef. See the <literal>perldiag</literal>
> + man page for more details.
> + </para>
> + </note>
> +
> <para>
> The syntax of the <command>CREATE FUNCTION</command> command requires
> the function body to be written as a string constant. It is usually
>
>
> ---------------------------(end of broadcast)---------------------------
> TIP 3: Have you checked our extensive FAQ?
>
> http://www.postgresql.org/docs/faq
>


--
Bruce Momjian | http://candle.pha.pa.us
pgman@candle.pha.pa.us | (610) 359-1001
+ If your life is a hard drive, | 13 Roberts Road
+ Christ can be your backup. | Newtown Square, Pennsylvania 19073

---------------------------(end of broadcast)---------------------------
TIP 1: if posting/reading through Usenet, please send an appropriate
subscribe-nomail command to majordomo@postgresql.org so that your
message can get through to the mailing list cleanly

Digg this Post!Add Post to del.icio.usBookmark Post in TechnoratiFurl this Post!
Reply With Quote
  #9 (permalink)  
Old 04-17-2008, 11:58 PM
Greg Sabino Mullane
 
Posts: n/a
Default Re: suggested warning about perl nested named subroutines


-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----
Hash: SHA1


> If this were a Postgres problem I'd agree with you. But it isn't, really
> - it's a Perl problem, which is properly documented in the Perl docs, to
> which this note refers.


Well, it's really a problem with our implementation of pl/perl. I don't think
it's entirely fair to simply say it's a perl problem and point people at a
perldoc page. An example would definitely be nice - it is not as if the pl/perl
docs are growing out of control or anything.

> I don't think we'll get flooded with problems - Greg is the first person
> who has complained about it in the 9 months or so since version 8.0 was
> released.


Call me cutting edge. I ran into this when creating an article about
how wonderful pl/perl is. I just don't think many people are using it yet.
Hopefully that will change after my article comes out and I convince all
those perl hackers out there that procedural languages don't need to be
painful anymore.

+1 on the 5.6 dependency: it came out in early 2000. By way of comparison,
PostgreSQL was at version 6.5.3 when perl 5.6 came out.

One more annoyance, while I'm here: what's with "spi_exec_query()"? Is that
the best name we could come up with? How about something short and simple,
in the same vein as "elog()", such as "sql()" ?

- --
Greg Sabino Mullane greg@turnstep.com
PGP Key: 0x14964AC8 200510121205
http://biglumber.com/x/web?pk=2529DF...9B906714964AC8

-----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----

iD8DBQFDTT+1vJuQZxSWSsgRApbmAKCTQWMS3RQIY4R0Bby0Xj 8hMZ9mqgCfdskt
q5J6e0AaIOFaVI+pXnGGWCo=



---------------------------(end of broadcast)---------------------------
TIP 3: Have you checked our extensive FAQ?

http://www.postgresql.org/docs/faq

Digg this Post!Add Post to del.icio.usBookmark Post in TechnoratiFurl this Post!
Reply With Quote
  #10 (permalink)  
Old 04-17-2008, 11:58 PM
Andrew Dunstan
 
Posts: n/a
Default Re: suggested warning about perl nested named subroutines



Greg Sabino Mullane wrote:

>>If this were a Postgres problem I'd agree with you. But it isn't, really
>>- it's a Perl problem, which is properly documented in the Perl docs, to
>>which this note refers.
>>
>>

>
>Well, it's really a problem with our implementation of pl/perl. I don't think
>it's entirely fair to simply say it's a perl problem and point people at a
>perldoc page. An example would definitely be nice - it is not as if the pl/perl
>docs are growing out of control or anything.
>
>


Submit a patch then.

>+1 on the 5.6 dependency: it came out in early 2000. By way of comparison,
>PostgreSQL was at version 6.5.3 when perl 5.6 came out.
>
>


Sure. But there is an older, slightly more klunky, mechanism should work
just as well in this case (see my script).

>One more annoyance, while I'm here: what's with "spi_exec_query()"? Is that
>the best name we could come up with? How about something short and simple,
>in the same vein as "elog()", such as "sql()" ?
>
>
>
>


I don't much like it either. But it's there from 8.0, so we really
shouldn't change it now. OTOH I don't like also having spi_query, but
nobody has kicked up much. If we're going to change that we need to
change it real fast.

cheers

andrew

---------------------------(end of broadcast)---------------------------
TIP 9: In versions below 8.0, the planner will ignore your desire to
choose an index scan if your joining column's datatypes do not
match

Digg this Post!Add Post to del.icio.usBookmark Post in TechnoratiFurl this Post!
Reply With Quote
Reply


Thread Tools
Display Modes

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

vB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off
Trackbacks are On
Pingbacks are On
Refbacks are On
Forum Jump


All times are GMT. The time now is 11:38 AM.


Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.6.5
Copyright ©2000 - 2008, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.
SEO by vBSEO 3.2.0
UnixAdminTalk.com

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 30 31 32 33 34 35 36 37 38 39 40 41 42 43 44 45 46 47 48 49 50 51 52 53 54 55 56 57 58 59 60 61 62 63 64 65 66 67 68 69 70 71 72 73 74 75 76 77 78 79 80 81 82 83 84 85 86 87 88 89 90 91 92 93 94 95 96 97 98 99 100 101 102 103 104 105 106 107 108 109 110 111 112 113 114 115 116 117 118 119 120 121 122 123 124 125 126 127 128 129 130 131 132 133 134 135 136 137 138 139 140 141 142 143 144 145 146 147 148 149 150 151 152 153 154 155 156 157 158 159 160 161 162 163 164 165 166 167 168 169 170 171 172 173 174 175 176 177 178 179 180 181 182 183 184 185 186 187 188 189 190 191 192 193 194 195 196 197 198 199 200 201 202 203 204 205 206 207 208 209 210 211 212 213 214 215 216 217 218 219 220 221 222 223 224 225 226 227 228 229 230 231 232 233 234 235 236 237 238 239 240 241 242 243 244 245 246 247 248 249 250 251 252 253 254 255 256 257 258 259 260 261 262 263 264 265 266 267 268 269 270 271 272 273 274 275 276 277 278 279 280 281 282 283 284 285 286 287 288 289 290 291 292 293 294 295 296 297 298 299 300 301 302 303 304 305 306 307 308 309 310 311 312 313 314 315 316 317 318 319 320 321 322 323 324 325 326 327 328 329 330 331 332 333 334 335 336 337 338 339 340 341 342 343 344 345 346 347 348 349 350 351 352 353 354 355 356 357 358 359 360 361 362 363 364 365 366 367 368 369 370 371 372 373 374 375 376 377 378 379 380 381 382 383 384 385 386 387 388 389 390 391 392 393 394 395 396 397 398 399 400 401 402 403 404 405 406 407 408 409 410 411 412 413 414 415 416 417 418 419 420 421 422 423 424 425 426 427 428 429 430 431 432 433 434 435 436 437 438 439 440 441 442 443 444 445 446 447 448 449 450 451 452 453 454 455 456 457 458 459 460 461 462 463 464 465 466 467 468 469 470 471 472 473 474 475 476 477 478 479 480 481 482 483 484 485 486