Re: WIP: plpython3

From: Peter Eisentraut <peter_e(at)gmx(dot)net>
To: pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org
Cc: James Pye <lists(at)jwp(dot)name>
Subject: Re: WIP: plpython3
Date: 2009-07-24 08:21:19
Message-ID: 200907241121.19524.peter_e@gmx.net
Views: Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email
Thread:
Lists: pgsql-hackers

On Friday 24 July 2009 01:23:40 James Pye wrote:
> Here are the features that I plan/hope to implement before submitting
> any patch:
>
> * Native Typing [Python types that represent Postgres types]
> * Reworked function structure (Python modules, not function fragments)
> * Improved SQL interfaces (prepared statement objects[2])
> * Better SRF support(?) (uses iterators, will support composites,
> vpc & mat)
> * Direct function calls (to other Postgres functions)
> * IST support (with xact(): ...)
> * Full tracebacks for Python exceptions(CONTEXT support)
> * Cached bytecode (presuming a "procache" attributes patch would be
> acceptable[3])

While various of these ideas may be good, I think you are setting yourself up
for a rejection. There is a lot of plpython code already out there, and many
years have gone into debugging plpython to work well, so rewriting everything
and setting everyone up for a flag day, or requiring the parallel maintenance
of old and new versions of plpython is not going to work. Plus, tying all of
this up with Python 3 will make totally sure that no one expect a minority
will be able to use it.

As far as I can tell, most of the features you list above could very well be
implemented in the current language handler, using separate, isolated patches.
I don't see why everything needs to be written from scratch.

In response to

Responses

Browse pgsql-hackers by date

  From Date Subject
Next Message Nikhil Sontakke 2009-07-24 08:45:49 Re: [PATCH] DefaultACLs
Previous Message Greg Williamson 2009-07-24 08:07:54 Re: SE-PostgreSQL Specifications