Skip site navigation (1) Skip section navigation (2)

Re: plpython3

From: Peter Eisentraut <peter_e(at)gmx(dot)net>
To: jd(at)commandprompt(dot)com
Cc: James William Pye <lists(at)jwp(dot)name>, Josh Berkus <josh(at)agliodbs(dot)com>, Robert Haas <robertmhaas(at)gmail(dot)com>, PostgreSQL-development Hackers <pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org>
Subject: Re: plpython3
Date: 2010-01-13 21:27:37
Message-ID: 1263418057.30626.8.camel@vanquo.pezone.net (view raw or flat)
Thread:
Lists: pgsql-hackers
On ons, 2010-01-13 at 12:12 -0800, Joshua D. Drake wrote:
> On Wed, 2010-01-13 at 13:06 -0700, James William Pye wrote:
> > Function Modules:
> >  - Does away with the need for GD/SD (more natural Python environment).
> >  - Allows tracebacks (tracebacks are useful, right?) to implemented easily.
> >  - Does *not* expose a bastardized variant of the language by pretending that "modules/script files" can return and yield.
> >  - Helps to promote the Python tenet of being explicit.
> > 
> > Native Typing:
> >  - Provides PG type introspection not available in any other PL, AFAIK.
> >  - Improves efficiency in some cases (conversion must be _explicitly_ called for) 
> >  - MD Array support.
> >  - Composites are a sequence and a mapping.
> > 
> > Other features: http://wiki.postgresql.org/wiki/WIP:plpython3
> > 
> > 
> > Aside from function modules and native typing, many of plpython3's features could be implemented incrementally. However, I had a chance to sprint and they are available now in a new implementation. I did so, rather than improving plpython, because I believe that native typing and function modules are very useful.
> > 
> > I'm not sure this fulfills your request, but, hopefully, it's a start.
> 
> It does actually. Now, hackers... as a Python guy I can say these things
> are truly useful, to a Python programmer trying to use Python as a
> procedural language with PostgreSQL.

The problem I'm having with this discussion is that every time someone
asks what the supposed advantages of this new Python PL are, a feature
list like the above is dumped, 75% of which is subjective and tends to
use semi-buzzwords, such that then someone else who by his own admission
isn't completely up to date on things says, sure, that sounds great.
Who wouldn't like a "more natural Python environment", "native typing"
and "efficiency", and maybe even "explicitness"?  The current PL/Python
also has, arguably, a more natural Python environment, native typing,
efficiency, and explicitness.  So there you go.  Now what?


In response to

Responses

pgsql-hackers by date

Next:From: Stephen FrostDate: 2010-01-13 21:28:16
Subject: Re: [PATCH] remove redundant ownership checks
Previous:From: Boszormenyi ZoltanDate: 2010-01-13 21:26:57
Subject: Re: lock_timeout GUC patch

Privacy Policy | About PostgreSQL
Copyright © 1996-2014 The PostgreSQL Global Development Group