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
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.
+1 if it can be done
I haven't looked very closely at plpython for a long time, but anything
else seems ugly.
cheers
andrew
--
Sent via pgsql-hackers mailing list (pgsql-hackers@postgresql.org)
To make changes to your subscription:
http://www.postgresql.org/mailpref/pgsql-hackers
