On 4/6/17 9:21 PM, Andres Freund wrote:
Personally I'm way more excited about what a SPI feature like this
could do for plpgsql than about what it can do for plpython.  If the
latter is what floats your boat, that's fine; but I want a feature
that we can build on for other uses, not a hack that we know we need
to redesign next month.


Yeah, I thought about plpgsql and I can't see any way to make that work through an SPI callback (perhaps just due to my ignorance on things C). I suspect what plpgsql actually wants is a way to tell SPI to start the executor up, a function that pulls individual tuples out of the executor, and then a function to shut the executor down.

Dislike of the proposed implementation, alternative proposals, and the
refutation of the "absolutely no way to do more without breaking plpy"
argument leads to me to conclude that this should be returned with
feedback.

Agreed.
--
Jim Nasby, Chief Data Architect, Austin TX
OpenSCG                 http://OpenSCG.com


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

Reply via email to