6 Commits (0c051c90082da0b7e5bcaf9aabcbd4f361137cdc)

Author	SHA1	Message	Date
Alvaro Herrera	c219d9b0a5	Split tuple struct defs from htup.h to htup_details.h ... This reduces unnecessary exposure of other headers through htup.h, which is very widely included by many files. I have chosen to move the function prototypes to the new file as well, because that means htup.h no longer needs to include tupdesc.h. In itself this doesn't have much effect in indirect inclusion of tupdesc.h throughout the tree, because it's also required by execnodes.h; but it's something to explore in the future, and it seemed best to do the htup.h change now while I'm busy with it.	14 years ago
Bruce Momjian	927d61eeff	Run pgindent on 9.2 source tree in preparation for first 9.3 ... commit-fest.	14 years ago
Peter Eisentraut	ba3e4157a7	PL/Python: Accept strings in functions returning composite types ... Before 9.1, PL/Python functions returning composite types could return a string and it would be parsed using record_in. The 9.1 changes made PL/Python only expect dictionaries, tuples, or objects supporting getattr as output of composite functions, resulting in a regression and a confusing error message, as the strings were interpreted as sequences and the code for transforming lists to database tuples was used. Fix this by treating strings separately as before, before checking for the other types. The reason why it's important to support string to database tuple conversion is that trigger functions on tables with composite columns get the composite row passed in as a string (from record_out). Without supporting converting this back using record_in, this makes it impossible to implement pass-through behavior for these columns, as PL/Python no longer accepts strings for composite values. A better solution would be to fix the code that transforms composite inputs into Python objects to produce dictionaries that would then be correctly interpreted by the Python->PostgreSQL counterpart code. But that would be too invasive to backpatch to 9.1, and it is too late in the 9.2 cycle to attempt it. It should be revisited in the future, though. Reported as bug #6559 by Kirill Simonov. Jan Urbański	14 years ago
Tom Lane	ed75380bda	Create a stack of pl/python "execution contexts". ... This replaces the former global variable PLy_curr_procedure, and provides a place to stash per-call-level information. In particular we create a per-call-level scratch memory context. For the moment, the scratch context is just used to avoid leaking memory from datatype output function calls in PLyDict_FromTuple. There probably will be more use-cases in future. Although this is a fix for a pre-existing memory leakage bug, it seems sufficiently invasive to not want to back-patch; it feels better as part of the major rearrangement of plpython code that we've already done as part of 9.2. Jan Urbański	14 years ago
Peter Eisentraut	f9de1e9a96	PL/Python: Add argument names to function declarations ... For easier source reading	14 years ago
Peter Eisentraut	147c248254	Split plpython.c into smaller pieces ... This moves the code around from one huge file into hopefully logical and more manageable modules. For the most part, the code itself was not touched, except: PLy_function_handler and PLy_trigger_handler were renamed to PLy_exec_function and PLy_exec_trigger, because they were not actually handlers in the PL handler sense, and it makes the naming more similar to the way PL/pgSQL is organized. The initialization of the procedure caches was separated into a new function init_procedure_caches to keep the hash tables private to plpy_procedures.c. Jan Urbański and Peter Eisentraut	14 years ago