On Wed, Nov 3, 2010 at 14:43, Jan Urbański <wulc...@wulczer.org> wrote:
> By the way, I'm leaning in the direction of not using a Python
> dictionary for the cache, but a standard Postgres HTAB instead. It's
> more like other pls this way, and you can get rid of PyCObjects (which
> are deprecated BTW) and messing around with reference counting the
> cached procedures.
Well if they are deprecated and there is an arguably cleaner way to do
it... might as well.
> I was even thinking about having *two* hash tables, for trigger and
> nontrigger procedures...<snip>... Saves you the trouble of
> defining a structure for the key... Not sure if it'll turn out for the
> better, but I'm definitely for not using a Python dictionary for the cache.
*shrug*
> make plpythonu use
> subtransactions for SPI and be able to do:
>
> try:
> plpy.execute("insert into foo values(1)")
> except plpy.UniqueViolation, e:
> plpy.notice("Ooops, you got yourself a SQLSTATE %d", e.sqlstate)
Ouuu <googly eyes>.
[ now that eval { }, thanks to Tim Bunce, works with plperl it should
be possible to do something similar there as well. Just noting the
possibility... not volunteering :) ]
--
Sent via pgsql-hackers mailing list (pgsql-hackers@postgresql.org)
To make changes to your subscription:
http://www.postgresql.org/mailpref/pgsql-hackers
