| From: | Josh Berkus <josh(at)agliodbs(dot)com> |
|---|---|
| To: | "Joshua D(dot) Drake" <jd(at)commandprompt(dot)com> |
| Cc: | Bruce Momjian <bruce(at)momjian(dot)us>, Alvaro Herrera <alvherre(at)commandprompt(dot)com>, Peter Eisentraut <peter_e(at)gmx(dot)net>, Nathan Boley <npboley(at)gmail(dot)com>, Robert Haas <robertmhaas(at)gmail(dot)com>, James William Pye <lists(at)jwp(dot)name>, Greg Smith <greg(at)2ndquadrant(dot)com>, PostgreSQL-development Hackers <pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org> |
| Subject: | Re: plpython3 |
| Date: | 2010-02-01 21:43:56 |
| Message-ID: | 4B674B1C.9080707@agliodbs.com |
| Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
| Thread: | |
| Lists: | pgsql-hackers |
On 2/1/10 1:39 PM, Joshua D. Drake wrote:
> On Mon, 2010-02-01 at 16:31 -0500, Bruce Momjian wrote:
>>
>>>> I would love to know why PL/Python can't be incrementally improved like
>>>> the rest of our code.
>>> It has been. That is exactly what PeterE has been doing.
>>>
>>> However, if you look at this whole thread, you will see the James has a
>>> very different view of the implementation. One that at least appears to
>>> be more advanced and "pythonic" than our version.
>> More "pythonic" in its internal processing or in its user interface?
>
> User interface and also internal processing (see the types discussion).
Yeah, from the sound of it, we should put this in pgfoundry (or
elsewhere) and have people try it out for 9.0. If the python folks love
it, we can consider adding it to core, and then we can have the argument
about whether to depreciate the older version.
--Josh Berkus
| From | Date | Subject | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Next Message | Robert Haas | 2010-02-01 22:09:14 | Re: plpython3 |
| Previous Message | Joshua D. Drake | 2010-02-01 21:39:12 | Re: plpython3 |