From: | Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us> |
---|---|
To: | Andrew Dunstan <andrew(at)dunslane(dot)net> |
Cc: | Josh Berkus <josh(at)agliodbs(dot)com>, pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org |
Subject: | Re: plpython is broken for recursive use |
Date: | 2015-10-17 02:03:32 |
Message-ID: | 17326.1445047412@sss.pgh.pa.us |
Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
Thread: | |
Lists: | pgsql-hackers |
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
From | Date | Subject | |
---|---|---|---|
Next Message | Stephen Frost | 2015-10-17 02:11:05 | Re: [PATCH v3] GSSAPI encryption support |
Previous Message | Tom Lane | 2015-10-17 01:51:52 | Re: Foreign join pushdown vs EvalPlanQual |