Re: plpython is broken for recursive use

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