plpython3
in [PgSql]
|
From: James William Pye on 1 Feb 2010 16:38 On Feb 1, 2010, at 2:13 PM, Bruce Momjian wrote: > I would love to know why PL/Python can't be incrementally improved like > the rest of our code. AFAICT, there are two primary, perhaps identifying, parts to a PL extension: code management (compilation, execution, etc) and type I/O (conversion in most PLs). (well, aside from the language itself =) My proposed extension chooses a different design for both of those parts. It didn't make sense to try and incrementally change PL/Python because I would have been rewriting the whole thing anyways. Not to mention breaking user code in the process for the mentioned parts--thus the Python 3 target. Hope this clears things up. -- Sent via pgsql-hackers mailing list (pgsql-hackers(a)postgresql.org) To make changes to your subscription: http://www.postgresql.org/mailpref/pgsql-hackers
From: Josh Berkus on 1 Feb 2010 16:43 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 -- Sent via pgsql-hackers mailing list (pgsql-hackers(a)postgresql.org) To make changes to your subscription: http://www.postgresql.org/mailpref/pgsql-hackers
From: Robert Haas on 1 Feb 2010 17:09 On Mon, Feb 1, 2010 at 4:30 PM, Joshua D. Drake <jd(a)commandprompt.com> wrote: > On Mon, 2010-02-01 at 16:13 -0500, Bruce Momjian wrote: >> Alvaro Herrera wrote: >> > Peter Eisentraut escribi?: >> > > On m?n, 2010-02-01 at 12:01 -0800, Nathan Boley wrote: >> > > > I code nearly exclusively in python and C, but I have >> > > > often found pl/python to be very unwieldy. For this reason I often >> > > > use pl/perl or pl/pgsql for problems that, outside of postgres, I >> > > > would always use python. >> > > >> > > I find that curious, because much of the criticism about the current >> > > PL/Python can be traced back to the fact that the implementation used to >> > > be an exact copy of PL/Perl. >> > >> > Perhaps the problem is that PL/Perl used to be unwieldy back when >> > PL/Python was created. PL/Perl has definitely seen a lot more activity. >> >> 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. I don't know if the native typing stuff is "more advanced" than our current code or not; that's kind of fuzzy terminology if you think about it. It is, however, a lot different than what we do in the existing PL/python, or, to the best of my knowledge, any of the other PLs with, perhaps, the exception of PL/pgsql. So conceivably someone could submit a PL/perlNG, a PL/lolcodeNG, etc. taking a similar approach. It's worth thinking about how we feel about that. ....Robert -- Sent via pgsql-hackers mailing list (pgsql-hackers(a)postgresql.org) To make changes to your subscription: http://www.postgresql.org/mailpref/pgsql-hackers
From: James William Pye on 1 Feb 2010 17:35
On Feb 1, 2010, at 1:23 PM, Nathan Boley wrote: >> I think it would be great for you to review it... I doubt that will >> cause it to get committed for 9.0, but my doubt is no reason for you >> to hold off reviewing it. > > I assumed so, but the pretense of a chance will probably help to motivate me :-) > > I'll have something by Thursday, and then 'Returned with Feedback' > will at least be factual. I haven't updated the plpython3 branch in a while, so you may want to hit the github repo with the PGXS build: http://github.com/jwp/pg-python ....Should probably get the updated docs published too, but they are available in src/documentation as ReST files. If you have sphinx installed, running `make html` in the root project directory should build them into src/sphinx/html. -- Sent via pgsql-hackers mailing list (pgsql-hackers(a)postgresql.org) To make changes to your subscription: http://www.postgresql.org/mailpref/pgsql-hackers |