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:
http://www.postgresql.org/mailpref/pgsql-hackers
