Re: plpython3

On Sun, Dec 13, 2009 at 5:02 PM, James Pye <lists(at)jwp(dot)name> wrote:
> On Nov 19, 2009, at 5:41 PM, James Pye wrote:
>> Here's my latest patch.
>
> Fixed a lot of memory/reference leaks, added some minor features(mostly around Arrays), and filled in more documentation.
>
> At this point, I don't have any more minor features in mind(save extending Postgres.notify when the payload patch hits), so I'm just doing finish work(improvements/clarifications to docs, message strings, and maybe some makefile work).

I'm almost afraid to write anything at all about this patch for fear
of being branded a nattering nabob of negativity (see other thread:
damage control mode) but hopefully if I'm full of it (or not) others
will write in and set me straight (or confirm my thinking, whichever
is appropriate). Anyhow, I started by reviewing the past threads on
this patch, to which the author helpfully provided links:

> Past threads on the subject:
>
> http://archives.postgresql.org/pgsql-hackers/2009-05/msg01376.php
> http://archives.postgresql.org/pgsql-hackers/2009-07/msg01519.php
> http://archives.postgresql.org/pgsql-hackers/2009-08/msg01505.php

I think we should be clear that this patch doesn't have a great deal
to do with Python 3, since Peter Eisentraut has already patched the
existing code to support Python 3. It is, rather, a reimplementation
of PL/python, and accordingly it ought to be called pl/newpython or
perhaps pl/pye-thon (sorry, couldn't resist). Peter Eisentraut has
made it pretty clear that he would prefer to see us maintain and
enhance the existing implementation rather than starting over, and
even if we did start over, it seems from the above threads that we'd
still need to maintain the existing code for quite a while (if not
forever).

So it seems to me that the threshold question for this patch is - do
we think it's a good idea to maintain two implementations of PL/python
in core?

...Robert