I wrote:
> This seems like a very Rube-Goldbergian way of setting up a local
> namespace for the user-defined code.  I think perhaps what we should do
> is:

> 1. Compile the user-supplied code directly into a code object, without
> wrapping it in a "def".  (Hence, PLy_procedure_munge_source goes away
> entirely, which would be nice.)  Forget about generating a code object
> containing a call, too.

After further study, it appears this approach won't work because it
breaks "yield" --- AFAICT, Python only allows "yield" inside a "def".

At this point I think what we need is to find a way of passing the
function parameters honestly, that is, as actual parameters in the
manufactured call.  I've not looked into how that might be done.

                        regards, tom lane

Sent via pgsql-hackers mailing list (pgsql-hackers@postgresql.org)
To make changes to your subscription:

Reply via email to