On 10/16/2015 10:03 PM, Tom Lane wrote:
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
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.

+1 if it can be done

I haven't looked very closely at plpython for a long time, but anything else seems ugly.



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

Reply via email to