* Re: [Tarantool-patches] [tarantool-patches] Re: [PATCH v3 4/4] sql: use name instead of function pointer for UDF
[not found] ` <b7b6342f-b689-a959-e2a5-cef81f5f3f34@tarantool.org>
@ 2019-10-14 17:10 ` Nikita Pettik
0 siblings, 0 replies; only message in thread
From: Nikita Pettik @ 2019-10-14 17:10 UTC (permalink / raw)
To: Kirill Shcherbatov; +Cc: tarantool-patches, tarantool-patches
On 07 Oct 17:21, Kirill Shcherbatov wrote:
> >
> > Usually we protect pointers with schema_version, rather than avoid
> > them at all. Please take a look how iterators work.
> >
>
> We've discussed this question in T. and decided that current approach is ok except the
> necessity to rename OP_Function to OP_FunctionByName. Done.
>
> ===========================================
>
> This patch changes OP_Function parameters convention: now a
> function's name is passed instead of pointer to the function
> object. This allows to normally handle the situation, when UDF
> has been deleted to the moment of the VDBE code execution.
> In particular case this may happen with CK constraints that
> refers to a deleted persistent function.
> ---
Could you add test case covering mentioned situation?
^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] only message in thread
only message in thread, other threads:[~2019-10-14 17:10 UTC | newest]
Thread overview: (only message) (download: mbox.gz / follow: Atom feed)
-- links below jump to the message on this page --
[not found] <cover.1568637869.git.kshcherbatov@tarantool.org>
[not found] ` <1104a40d34d785d4c436bb390241bcd3b29e7c23.1568637869.git.kshcherbatov@tarantool.org>
[not found] ` <20190920071922.GD8859@atlas>
[not found] ` <b7b6342f-b689-a959-e2a5-cef81f5f3f34@tarantool.org>
2019-10-14 17:10 ` [Tarantool-patches] [tarantool-patches] Re: [PATCH v3 4/4] sql: use name instead of function pointer for UDF Nikita Pettik
This is a public inbox, see mirroring instructions
for how to clone and mirror all data and code used for this inbox