Re: plpython tracebacks

Neil Conway wrote:

> Actually, don't worry about it -- I've made the corrections I had in
> mind myself. Attached is a revised patch. On looking closer, I didn't
> really like the way the patch accumulated the lines of the traceback:
> AFAICS _PyString_Join() is not an "official" Python C API function (it's
> not documented, at any rate), and besides it is cleaner and more
> efficient to build up the traceback string in a StringInfo rather than
> using Python lists and strings.
>
I like it.  You can tell I'm a python programmer, not a C programmer.

Question:

Are you sure this works: "PyString_AsString(lno)"?  lno is a python
integer object.  Maybe we want, "PyString_AsString(PyObject_Str(lno))"

> The attached patch isn't quite finished: "No Traceback" when there is no
> traceback information  doesn't seem like the best message

OK, how about "There is no traceback information"

, I need to
> update the regression tests and some comments, etc. But I plan to apply
> something similar in substance to the attached patch to HEAD in the next
> day or two, barring objections.
>
Thanks for your attention to this!