plpython3
in [PgSql]
|
From: Robert Haas on 12 Jan 2010 22:05 On Sun, Dec 13, 2009 at 5:02 PM, James Pye <lists(a)jwp.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 -- 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 12 Jan 2010 23:06 > 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? Not really, no. This is why we need PGAN ;-) If the new implementation is *better* that the existing PL/python, I could see eventually replacing it. It wouldn't be the first time that a rewrite exceeded the original tool. However, I'm not in a position to judge quality. --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: "Joshua D. Drake" on 13 Jan 2010 12:47 On Tue, 2010-01-12 at 20:06 -0800, Josh Berkus wrote: > > 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? > > Not really, no. This is why we need PGAN ;-) > > If the new implementation is *better* that the existing PL/python, I > could see eventually replacing it. It wouldn't be the first time that a > rewrite exceeded the original tool. I think it is important to remember that the current version of PL/python is pretty weak compared to its counter parts (Specifically PL/Perl). If the new version, is adequately written to community standards and increases PL/Python's capabilities we need to seriously consider it. If we can address any issues with this module, let's commit it as Pl/pythonng3 or something. Anyway, I am +1 on reviewing this patch for viability. I would love to never touch plPerl for advanced procedures again. Joshua D. Drake -- PostgreSQL.org Major Contributor Command Prompt, Inc: http://www.commandprompt.com/ - 503.667.4564 Consulting, Training, Support, Custom Development, Engineering Respect is earned, not gained through arbitrary and repetitive use or Mr. or Sir. -- 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: Peter Eisentraut on 13 Jan 2010 12:53 On ons, 2010-01-13 at 09:47 -0800, Joshua D. Drake wrote: > I think it is important to remember that the current version of > PL/python is pretty weak compared to its counter parts (Specifically > PL/Perl). How so? -- 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: "Joshua D. Drake" on 13 Jan 2010 13:08
On Wed, 2010-01-13 at 19:53 +0200, Peter Eisentraut wrote: > On ons, 2010-01-13 at 09:47 -0800, Joshua D. Drake wrote: > > I think it is important to remember that the current version of > > PL/python is pretty weak compared to its counter parts (Specifically > > PL/Perl). > > How so? O.k. you may have just called me on an unintentional bluff. My knowledge of plpython is dated. I just tested some of the things (like in/out) and they appear to work at least on 8.4). My argument would be now, what is the benefit of the James Pye version over our version. James can you illustrate succinctly why we should be supporting a new version? If there is, I am still all for it, but I am a python bigot. Sincerely, Joshua D. Drake > > -- PostgreSQL.org Major Contributor Command Prompt, Inc: http://www.commandprompt.com/ - 503.667.4564 Consulting, Training, Support, Custom Development, Engineering Respect is earned, not gained through arbitrary and repetitive use or Mr. or Sir. -- Sent via pgsql-hackers mailing list (pgsql-hackers(a)postgresql.org) To make changes to your subscription: http://www.postgresql.org/mailpref/pgsql-hackers |