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