Open
Conversation
when we have a transaction context and can let plpython do most of the work for us.
it actually expects.
This file contains hidden or bidirectional Unicode text that may be interpreted or compiled differently than what appears below. To review, open the file in an editor that reveals hidden Unicode characters.
Learn more about bidirectional Unicode characters
Sign up for free
to join this conversation on GitHub.
Already have an account?
Sign in to comment
1 participant
Add this suggestion to a batch that can be applied as a single commit.This suggestion is invalid because no changes were made to the code.Suggestions cannot be applied while the pull request is closed.Suggestions cannot be applied while viewing a subset of changes.Only one suggestion per line can be applied in a batch.Add this suggestion to a batch that can be applied as a single commit.Applying suggestions on deleted lines is not supported.You must change the existing code in this line in order to create a valid suggestion.Outdated suggestions cannot be applied.This suggestion has been applied or marked resolved.Suggestions cannot be applied from pending reviews.Suggestions cannot be applied on multi-line comments.Suggestions cannot be applied while the pull request is queued to merge.Suggestion cannot be applied right now. Please check back later.
I think this is a less hacky way to initialize plpython and multicorn at the same time. Basically, it just calls plpython_inline_handler and asks it to eval pass.
To do this, we have to initialize things later than in the past.
This opens the door to creating a utils.plpy_eval function that will run python inside the plpython context for light weight calls to plpython. We will also be able to setup a trampline via python to wrap the multicorn entry points for a more heavyweight way to guarantee we have the appropriate context for plpy functions to work.
Comments, suggestions?